I move—

In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, the substances mentioned in the Fourth Schedule of this Act are deemed to be poisonous, and provision is made in Section 48 for the Medical Council or the Pharmacy Board recommending from time to time that additional substances should be added to the Fourth Schedule. If the Council makes a recommendation, such recommendation has to be considered and approved by the Pharmacy Board before being submitted to the Department of Public Health; and vice versa, in the case of the Pharmacy Board making a recommendation such recommendation has to be approved and considered by the Council. The Department can then recommend from time to time that substances not included in the Fourth Schedule should in future be included. The Medical Council has now recommended, with the approval of the Pharmacy Board, that the substances set out in the motion, namely, Thyroid Gland (dry Thyroid, Thyroid extract), the active principles of Thyroid Gland and their salts—the word “salts” should be substituted by “derivatives”—and Paraldehyde. These substances are now to be transferred to the Fourth Schedule. The sale of Thyroid Gland and Thyroid Gland preparations at present is not restricted in any way. Hon. members may be interested to know—I see the female members are not present in the House at the moment!—that these substances form the basis of many alleged slimming preparations, and cases of acute Thyroid poisoning have occurred as a result of their use. Cases of addiction to the drug have also occurred, and it is felt that these Thyroid preparations that are now being used indiscriminately should be controlled and that they should be placed in the Fourth Schedule. Similarly, there is no restriction on the sale of Paraldehyde, which is a sedative and a hypnotic, and cases of acute and chronic poisoning have occurred, cases which in the final stages may lead to mental and physical deterioration. Many cases of addiction to this drug have now been recorded. The Department of Public Health has considered these recommendations, which have been made by the Medical Council and concurred in by the Pharmacy Board, and in its opinion it is necessary in the interests of public health that these particular drugs should be controlled. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary in terms of the Act to approve this resolution in the House, and if this House approves the motion it will be necessary for hon. Senators to concur before the recommendation can be forwarded to His Excellency administering the Government.

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

The Medical Council has had under consideration for some time the question of amending the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. In 1943 it appointed a sub-committee to to go into the question of suitable amendments. That committee has not yet completed its investigations, but, as a result of representations made to it by the University of the Witwatersrand, it has, as a matter of urgency, approached the Public Health Department for certain amendments to the Act to enable the Faculty of Dentistry at the University of Witwatersrand to be represented on the Medical Council. The Medical Council has taken this opportunity, when asking the department to provide for this amendment, to ask for certain other amendments relating to the registration of practitioners who may not be domiciled in the Union of South Africa, and in regard to increasing the number of’ dentists elected to the Council so as to permit of each province being represented by one elected dentist. Section 2, in subparagraph (b) of sub-section (4) deals with the matter of elected dentists. At the present time by Section 2 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act the Minister responsible nominates one dentist to the Council and three dentists are elected by the dentists themselves. The Act is now being amended to enable four dentists to be elected on the basis that there should be one for each province of the Union. Clause 3 of the Bill makes provision for the election of an additional dentist to raise the number to four. Instead of laying down that there should now be an election for the fourth it is provided in terms of Clause 3 (a) that the dentist nominated by the Minister to the Council shall be deemed to have vacated his seat in terms of the Electoral regulations in the schedule to the Act. There are three elected dentists at the present time, one representing Natal, one representing Transvaal, and one the Cape. There is no elected dentist from the Free State, but the dentist nominated to the Council last year by the Minister of Public Health does represent the Orange Free State. The effect of the operation of Clause 3 of the Bill will be this, that the dentist now representing the Free State in a nominative capacity will vacate his seat in that capacity and will become the elected member of the council in respect of the province of the Orange Free State. There will then be a vacancy for a nominated representative, a dentist, on the Council, and it will have to be filled by the Minister. Subparagraph (c) of Clause 2 makes provision for the representation of universities which have a Faculty of Dentistry. The only university having such a faculty at the present time is the University of the Witwatersrand. It will now be able to nominate a representative to sit on the Medical Council. On the Act coming into force, the University of the Witwatersrand will be obliged to make its recommendation within a period of two months; but the section also makes provision for the creation in existing universities, or universities which may come into being, for faculties of dentistry. Where such faculties of dentistry are established, the universities in question will be permitted to elect dentists to the Medical Council. In each case that will have to be done within three months of the Faculty of Dentistry coming into effect. Where a dentist is nominated within three months of the end of the quinquennial period that dentist will take office for the remainder of the period, and he will also sit for the ensuing five-year period. Clause 4 of the Bill deals with the question of the registration of medical practitioners and dentists. In terms of Section 24 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act—

Sec. 24 goes on to provide that the Registrar shall not be permitted to register such medical practitioner or dentist if in fact he is not domiciled within the Union of South Africa. I understand a number of medical and dental students are coming to our universities from outside the borders of the Union. We have Rhodesians; we shall probably have others; in terms of the Act as it stands at present these persons cannot be registered. Consequently they cannot practise there, even in the adjoining territories as they have not been registered here. In order to meet that difficulty the proviso in Clause 4 will be inserted in the Act from which members will see—

This visualises, Mr. Speaker, that our universities in South Africa will, as time goes on, train medical men, doctors and dentists, for a very much wider field of service than South Africa itself. It is all to the good that South Africa should be the training ground of medical men on the Continent of Africa, and this amendment to the Act will enable that policy to be pursued in the future.

I should like to point out that the development which is taking place here in regard to dentists in so far that provision is being made for representation of dentists on the Medical Board, is the correct procedure to increase the powers of a section of the personnel of the health services of the country. We find here that the dentists obtain further representation and I would say that the dentists may feel in a year or two that they want their own committee under the Medical Board and want to arrange their own matters under the Medical Board, it will then be easy to effect this. I just want to point out that this is the correct Way of development within such a board. The provision for further representation is very necessary and I am glad the Minister is using this opportunity to make Dr. Stegmann, who is the Government representative in the Free State, the elected member for the Free State, without holding an election and that the Government will furthermore appoint another dentist to be the Government representative and also that the University of the Witwatersrand will obtain representation. As far as the registration of persons who take their degrees at our universities is concerned, this is a very necessary measure. Nobody in South Africa will think that this is a bad provision. Thousands of doctors of South Africa have taken their degrees in other countries during the last 60 or 70 years, and those countries were prepared to register our students if they took their degrees there, although they were not nationals of those countries and were not even domiciled there. From other points of view it is also desirable that these people should be able to be registered as soon as they have taken their degrees here. I shall be glad if the House sees fit to give its full support to the provisions contained in the Bill.

I am very sorry, seeing that we are dealing here with a Bill affecting the chemists, that no provision is made whereby chemists can be compelled to take on apprentices. This especially affects the rural areas and the Afrikaners. This year we had about a dozen of these young men from the universities who walked the streets and could find nobody to take them on as apprentices. Gradually the profession of chemist is being walled in; gradually the people are being excluded from that profession. I understand that this has even become worse as the result of the wages which have been determined for chemist apprentices. The chemist prefers to take on a girl whom he has to pay less than the apparentice. The result is that when the chemist has to appoint an assistant he takes care that he gets somebody from his family or a friend whom he wants to do a special favour. I put this matter before the Minister so that he may go into it and may find out whether steps can be taken to force these people to take on apprentices so that there may at least be a certain percentage of apprentices as compared with the total number of chemists. It seems to me that this matter is becoming more and more urgent. This year there were eight or nine young men from the university who would have liked to take up this profession, but they could get nobody to indenture them.

I shall be glad to refer this matter to the Pharmacy Board.

I shall be pleased if the Minister will do that and if he will also keep an eye on the position, so that when they do not want to do anything about it, he may introduce legislation for it.

I shall consider this point.

I should like to raise one point in connection with what the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) said here in regard to the chemists. The difficulty is not so much that the chemists refuse to indenture apprentices. The difficulty is that the right is withheld from them by the Pharmacy Board. I do not know what the position is in the cities, but the position in the rural areas is as follows. The Pharmacy Board determines for the rural areas, for instance where there are two or three chemists in a village, that unless a person has made up at least 2,000 prescriptions during the preceding twelve months, he will not be allowed to take on an apprentice. The chemist in the rural district is in the position of giving sufficient attention to the training of the apprentice. These apprentices have at the same time to pass all the examinations, just like the apprentices working for the large firms. In a place like Cape Town one finds that the principals of a large firm do not have the chance and the opportunity to devote attention to an apprentice. Very likely such an apprentice has moreover to spend a large part of his time in selling lavender and similar products. In the rural areas the apprentice has a better opportunity to learn his trade. The Minister should submit this matter to the Pharmacy Board so that it may be made easier for the rural chemists to indenture apprentices. If he were to allow that, we would be able to provide for a very urgent need. I am in full agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Swellendam, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to this matter.

I would like to associate myself very heartily with the remarks made by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). The difficulties with which those students who want to become pharmacists are confronted, have become chronic, and the reasons are not far to seek. I would like the Minister to consult with the Minister of Education with regard to the possibility of students from the platteland having the opportunity of taking up a course at the university.

There is one at Potchefstroom.

But I am speaking now of the universities of the Witwatersrand and of Cape Town. The reason is that these students, after they have passed the matriculation examinations have to take a special course, and we cannot establish technical schools throughout South Africa where they could attend such courses, whereas they might attend the universities and do the recognised course there. In that way they would not be dependent on pharmacists taking them in. Pharmacists also have difficulty in respect of the wage they have to pay these students; I understand that they have to pay them at the rate of £8 a month and then have to teach them, and pharmacists me tell that they are pretty useless at first. If the Minister of Public Health, with the Minister of Education, can see that we have a course at the university to meet the difficulties in connection with these boys, especially from the platteland, these difficulties will largely disappear. I should like to associate myself with the remarks that have been made in that connection. I know of several young men who matriculated, and took the course provided at the technical colleges, but they simply cannot get into the pharmacies for experience in dispensing. I think that a pressing need is disclosed here, and that the Minister of Public Health must know about it.

I want to support what the previous speakers have said because the matter has come within my own experience. Some time ago in one of the larger agricultural towns of the Cape Province, a chemist wanted to apprentice his son. It would have been very convenient for him to have had him in his business, but he had to send him to Cape Town because his prescriptions did not amount to what is regarded as sufficient by the Pharmacy Board to allow him to have an apprentice. The ratio of prescriptions laid down does not suit the smaller town or even the bigger agricultural towns and the result is that they are all debarred from having apprentices, which should be put right. This was a chemist in a large way of business, but it must be remembered that in country towns doctors generally make up their own prescriptions.

I shall be glad to go into the questions raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) supported as he was by hon. members on all sides. It is a matter for consultations with the Pharmacy Board and I shall ask the Department of Public Health to go into this immediately the recess arrives. I was interested to find the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) taking up the cudgels on behalf of the chemists. I remember passing through Pietersburg some time ago and seeing a big sign between two business places. On it was written—

I leave it to the imagination of hon. members what those two firms were selling.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time; House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill now.

HOUSE IN COMMITTEE :

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

Bill to be read a third time on 26th May.

I move—

This is our last opportunity to say a few words in connection with this Bill, which to my mind is going to be a blot on the Statute Book of South Africa. Our time has now been limited and for that reason I shall confine myself to certain points. We have never had legislation of this nature except where the misdeeds of a government had to be justified by legislation in order to protect it against court cases, acts of war or strikes. The Minister of Lands is now introing legislation to take away the rights of persons which they have enjoyed for many years. That right to freedom of which the people are so proud, that right of ownership which they had in the past, is to be denied them in future. It appears to me as if we are returning to the days of slavery. This was the position in Egypt in the days of slavery, but one does not expect this kind of legislation today. What is being done here? Contracts entered into years ago are to be broken by this legislation. The love the man had for his land is now to be destroyed. If the Minister had made this legislation applicable only to contracts to be entered into in future, one could still understand it, for the persons concerned would then know the conditions on which they are buying the land, but I maintain that it is scandalous to make this legislation retrospective in its effect. But not only this. The Minister is by means of this legislation busy destroying the family ties which have always existed among the Afrikaners. He now wants to destroy the love which the son has for his old mother or father. In future he will not have the right to let his father or mother stay with him on the holding. In future he will have to obtain a pass from the Minister. Today we in South Africa can unfortunately no longer go on trek. We cannot trek any further north. All we can do now is to stand with our backs to the wall and to fight for our rights. If the Minister is going to take away these rights of the settlers, what guarantee do we have that the Government is not going to take away more rights in future? Who guarantees us that the Government is not going to say tomorrow or the day after tomorrow that the land on which Land Bank bonds have been obtained will also come under this legislation? We have no guarantee. After what the Government is doing now, they may come at any future date and declare that all people who have been receiving subsidy loans from the Land Bank will in future not be allowed to do with their land what they want to. The Minister is objecting so vociferously against speculation. We have already pointed to the fact that the Government is lending millions of pounds to municipalities in connection with housing schemes. When those people have paid off their houses they are entitled to do with them what they like. There is nothing to prevent them from selling their houses. They can speculate and make profits, but only the poor farmers must be debarred from doing that. I maintain that it is most unfair to pass legislation of this kind. I only want to say briefly that I hope that the settlers will keep courage. I hope that they will not lose all courage in these circumstances. I hope that they will keep courage and will pay their instalments and interest, and I do hope that they will not allow those red letters to be written on the transfer deeds of their settlements, and I want to give the undertakings to the settlers that when the Nationalist Party comes into power, one of its first actions will be to repeal this legislation. I want to state this morning that this Government will not always be in power. History has taught us that a government which sees a war through never remains in power thereafter. The wheel is turning and is turning fast. The hon. members over there know it.

Does the undertaking you give now mean that the 1937 Act will also be repealed?

I am speaking of this legislation of the Minister. Because the Minister in 1937 laid down certain conditions in the leases by way of agreement, but not with retrospective effect, the other side is holding that up as a justification for this legislation. I maintain that when the Nationalist Party comes into power this legislation will be repealed. I give this undertaking that this humiliating Bill which we have opposed for days, will be withdrawn when we come into power, for it is humiliating and scandalous. The Minister with his servile majority behind him will be able to force this Bill through.

When does a majority become servile?

There is not one constituency in this country where one does not find hundreds of settlers, and there is not one settler who will so humiliate himself as to vote again for a Government which takes away his rights. I now want to propose the following amendment—

I move this amendment because we on this side of the House are protesting most strongly against this Bill. When we move that the Bill be read this day six months, it means that we do not approve of the Bill and I hope that the people outside will understand that. They do not always understand what it means to read a Bill in six months’ time. It means that we condemn this Bill outright. We are opposed to this Bill and we declare that when we come into power, this legislation will be repealed.

I should like to second the amendment and I want to say that this is unfortunately our last opportunity to express our strongest protest against this unprincipled measure. The Government has no scruples in regard to this matter and it is making abuse of its powerful position as it has done never before. We are dealing here with the less privileged persons among our people, and this is a flagrant breach of faith against them. These are people who have to look to the Government for protection. The settler looks to the Minister of Lands for protection. You will find no capitalists among them. If capitalist interests had been involved in this matter I would have liked to see the capitalist press in this country rage against such a measure. Now, however, nothing is being said and the measure is accepted tacitly, whilst it is a breach of faith against the less privileged people who look to the Government for protection. The measure is being put through without the people being notified. Many of the settlers do not even know about this legislation yet. They are still living on their holdings in blissful ignorance and know nothing about this legislation. Their rude awakening will only come afterwards. Not only did they receive no notification but they were also denied the opportunity to protest against it. In the past any measure of this kind would have been referred to a Select Committee for a proper investigation and the interests concerned would have received an opportunity to state their case before the Select Committee. Not only did they not receive this opportunity, but even the representatives of the people in this House are being deprived of their right of doing their duty towards their electors. Their time is being limited. Every speaker has to say a few words as fast as he can: A servitude of a permanent nature is being placed on these people without any previous notification. Their land is being made valueless or at least being considerably reduced in value. Reference is continually being made to the Act of 1937. There is a great and important difference between that Act and this Bill. Personally I am not in favour of the 1937 Act and I would be prepared tomorrow to vote for it being repealed too. I want to say in passing that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) was quite incorrect. In 1937 the whole Nationalist Party not only protested but also fought against the Bill. The big difference between the 1937 Act and this Bill, however, is that the then Minister said at the time that, in order to protect the settlers, he would not allow that the holding would be sold in the first instance, in order to prevent certain people advancing money on the holdings so as to get hold of such holdings afterwards. The intention was to protect the man so that he would not again lose his holding straight away. This is a position entirely different from the one that is being created now. Under the 1937 Act the servitude fell away once the holding had been sold, but the present Minister imposes a servitude for all eternity and one which cannot be removed again. When a railway line is constructed which is to the advantage of the farm it passes and when the value of the farm increases in consequence, surely the Railways cannot register a servitude until such time as the owner has received notice and has been given the opportunity to appear, where it is necessary that he appears; through arbitration he may even receive compensation. In this case you deprive the people of then rights, without any compensation whatsoever and without giving them an opportunity to protest against it. So far we have not yet heard any protest from the other side. We even heard hon. members on the other side trying to justify the measure. The settlers must know that not one member of the other side has objected to it.

They will know about it.

That is right, they will know about it and they will get even with the Minister. When a motion is introduced allegedly affecting or attacking the interests of natives, the representatives of the natives get up here and without the slightest restriction being imposed upon them they speak on the motion again and again. They are allowed to speak because it affects native interests, and they even receive the support of some hon. members on the Government side. But when a question affects the poor European settlers, the time of members is curtailed and no opportunity is granted to them to put the case of the settlers properly before the House. We did not receive the slightest support of a single member of the the other side, neither from the United Party, nor the Labour Party, nor the Dominion Party. Only the Re-united Nationalist Party Championed the interests of the settlers. Hon. members on the other side have been sitting there like deaf-mutes. I want to recapitulate briefly what we tried to obtain through the amendments proposed by us. The Minister said that 20 amendments had been proposed. I think there were more than that number. There were 20 divisions. Moreover we would have moved more if we had had the opportunity. But the first amendment we proposed, a very important amendment, read—

In other words, we do not want to commit a breach of faith against people with whom an agreement was entered into. We are not prepared to commit a breach of faith. These were honest contracts which were entered into and which have been registered in the Deeds Office, and we maintain that the Government is not entitled to violate those agreements without the other party having being given notice or having been consulted in regard thereto. We do not want the legislation to be of retrospective effect. The hon. Minister told the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that the Bill is not with retrospective effect, but the Minister knows that this is incorrect. It is with retrospective effect and is applicable to every holding allotted since 1912 in connection with which no Crown grant has Vet been issued. When the Government did not want to grant us this concession, we suggested that at any rate the holdings allotted under Section 11 should be excluded. That concerns people who with their own money have bought their own little plot of land. They have paid the price and only obtained an advance from the Government. That advance they are paying back with full interest. There is not the slightest justification for placing a servitude on that land. We therefore proposed—

We know that the position of the Government in this case is the equivalent of that of an attorney who has received money or assets in trust for a client. The Government receives it in trust for the settlers and keeps it in trust for the settler. Instead of returning the full value, the Government or the Minister keeps part of it. In the case of an attorney he would be struck off the rolls on account of dishonesty. That is what should be done with the Minister in regard to this matter. It amounts to dishonesty against the settlers. Our third proposal was—

They are farmers and ought to receive another holding or some other means of existence before they are driven off the holding. Many of them are married. Even that fair request was refused and all the members on the other side voted against all our amendments as they were put. We tried to effect these things in the interests of the settlers. We then said that the provisions should not be applicable where Crown grants had already been issued. That amendment was accepted. I want to stress the point that this was an amendment coming from the Opposition and not from the Government side. If we had not proposed that, the measure would have been applicable even to all holdings in respect of which Crown grants had been issued in the past. It is due to the Opposition that this injustice against people who have their Crown grants was prevented. Speaking of Crown grants, it may be as well to explain what a Crown grant is, for the public often do not understand properly what this is. This is nothing else but a contract pure and simple. If a man meets his obligations and does everything that is expected of him, he receives his Crown grant, which is nothing else but a deed of transfer from the Government. The English word is Crown grant. This is the old expression but these are not Crown grants. One is dealing here with people who have paid the amount due in full and thereupon have received their transfer, but the unfortunate term “Crown grant” is still being used. It is purely and simply a deed of transfer after all obligations have been met. We furthermore proposed that when a settler is today entitled to his Crown grant, these provisions should not be made applicable to him. When a settler is entitled to his Crown grant because he has been occupying his holding for ten years and has exercised his option, the Minister cannot refuse to give him his Crown grant and if the Minister should refuse, the man can go to court. We maintain that those people should not come under this legislation. The Government accepted our proposals to exclude people who are already in possession of their Crown grants. Why then should this injustice be done to persons who are today entitled to their Crown grants? Even that moderate request the Minister did not want to accede to. On behalf of our party we also moved that this legislation should come into force not earlier than January, 1945, so that these people can use the opportunity between now and that date to find the purchase sum—that is not difficult today—in order to pay their debt in cash whereupon they can apply to the Department of Lands to obtain their Crown grants immediately. They can obtain a bond for the balance they still need and then pay off their debt to the department. I notice that the Land Bank is urging the farmers to take up money from the Land Bank. I cannot blame them for wanting to have nothing to do with the department and for obtaining their money elsewhere. I therefore say: give them the opportunity to pay up to the end of the year, so that they will be able to obtain the money between now and the end of the year in order to meet their obligations, and then they will not come under this legislation. Even this has been refused. I now want to say something and I hope that it will be published in the newspapers, in our newspapers and in other newspapers which are kindly disposed towards us. I want to advise all settlers who are entitled to their Crown grants to apply immediately for a Crown grant. I advise them to pay off in full the purchase sum they still owe. This should not be difficult, because the value of land has gone up. Send the money to the Minister, and if he does not issue the Crown grant within fourteen days, take him to court. You still have this opportunity. Many settlers should already have taken this step, for the Government has been busy refusing Crown grants during the last two years already. I maintain that it is both unfair and unjust to let people come under this legislation when they are entitled to their Crown grants. I therefore hope that this advice will be published so that the people may know that they should immediately proceed to obtain their Crown grants. They need not even enquire how much they owe; they can calculate that by means of their contract, for I am afraid that when they enquire how much they owe, the Minister will not reply. He will give instructions to his Department not to reply before this legislation has been passed. The Minister will do anything to prevent the people obtaining their Crown grant. If they now send on their registration fee of 15s. and a few pounds extra, they will, after having met their obligations, be able to obtain their Crown grant. The few pounds they may send in excess will be returned to them. If thereupon they do not get their Crown grant immediately, they will be fully entitled to go to court. One cannot appeal to the Governor-General; otherwise I would have made an appeal to him not to sign the Act until the people have had a proper opportunity to obtain their Crown grants. Then there is a further section of the settlers on whose behalf we also pleaded strongly and with regard to whom we also moved an amendment to have them excluded from this legislation; they are the people falling within the one per cent. areas, people who have progressed with farming under great sacrifices, people who are faced with great difficulties, people who in the interest of the whole of the Union have to sacrifice themselves to form a sort of buffer-state to prevent cattle diseases spreading into the Union from Bechuanaland. Those people havé been told that they will be specially looked after. They would have to pay only one per cent. They are the people we also want to exclude from the provisions of this Bill. It is neither fair nor just that their holdings should be further reduced in value by this legislation. These amendments were of course also turned down by the Government side. I only want to repeat that this amendment was proposed by us but we did not receive any support whatsoever from the Government party. The settlers must know who are the people who voted against it. This should not be a party matter. I do not blame the unfortunate members on the other side. Of course they would have liked to support us but the party whips will not allow them to do so. They are not entitled to protest against this legislation and to support our amendments.

When listening in this House to the speeches delivered here, one involuntarily realises that a man’s being, his heart, his soul and his conscience all change as his political fortunes change. When a person is a Minister, he speaks like a responsible person speaks. When he is no longer a Minister, he repudiates everything he has ever tried to build up during the time he was a Minister. He denies himself. It grieves me that we have allowed the debate in this Assembly to fall to such a level that we find that persons repudiate everything they built up in the past as soon as they are no longer in power that they exert all efforts to simply ruin the constructive work of the past, as long as they believe to be able to gain political advantages from it. Who are the members on the other side who were also members of this House in 1937? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) at that time was the Minister responsible for the Lands Department. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) I believe, was one of the chief whips in 1937, and when we look up the Hansard of that year we find at least thirteen members now sitting on the other side who were also members of this House in 1937 when this Act was passed. I shall mention their constituencies: Stellenbosch, Moorreesburg, Beaufort West, Oudtshoom, Victoria West (now Calvinia), Piketberg, Bloemfontein (District), Humansdorp, Graaff-Reinet, Waterberg, Somerset East, Pietersburg, Kimberley. They were all members of this House in 1937 and they agreed to the passing of the 193.7 Act.

What happened in regard to Clause 9?

I am coming to that. Let us explain to the people outside that the second reading is the most important stage in the passing of any legislation in this House. At the second reading the principle of a Bill is adopted, and I want to explain further that once the principle of a Bill has been accepted, we cannot have any alterations made during the committee stage which would change the principle of the Bill in such a way that the whole Bill would be killed by it. The second reading of a Bill is therefore the most important aspect of the passing of any legislation. When the second reading of the Act of 1937 was proposed, it was agreed to by this House without any division. I want to emphasise this and if hon. members should doubt it I refer them to column 6419 of the Hansard report of that year which reads as follows—

Bill read a second time; House to go into Committee now.

The whole procedure during the Committee stage involved only two divisions. The one was in connection with a motion to make the extension of the period from 40 years to 65 years generally applicable. Furthermore there was a division on Clause 9. There were, however, hardly any speeches. The whole Bill was dealt with in a few hours and if we compare the procedure of the House in that committee stage with what is happening here now, one would never say that the same principles of the Act of 1937 are embodied in this Bill. There are sufficient lawyers on the other side, lawyers who, apart from their profession as lawyers also have a second profession; whether this is an additional profession or their main profession I do not know—but they are also professional politicians. There are sufficient advocates and attorneys on the other side and I challenge them to bring proof here that in 1937 as great infringements were made on the sanctity of contracts as are made now. If there is any violation of agreements by this Bill, then I maintain that the same mischief, if it is a mischief, was done in 1937. But in order to substantiate my arguent I want to go somewhat further. In the first place I want to look at the Bill of 1937 as introduced and passed here. At that time the hon. member for Wolmaransstad was our Minister of Lands. He introduced the Bill and I have here before me the original Bill as introduced by him. That Bill was read as such for the second time and we find that it went much further than we are trying to go in the present Bill. Hon. members on the other side are speaking of retrospective effect. The hon. member for Pietersburg a few minutes ago with much indignation said that this was dishonest, that we are unscrupulous, that we are without mercy, that we have no humane feelings towards our fellow men, because we make the Bill retrospective in its effect. But what about the Bill introduced in 1937? Let us take Clause 9, which reads inter alia—

Please notice this—

Just read on.

Certainly. I am glad that the hon. member is pleased with the manner I read this and I shall delight him further—

Where do you see the words “or was at any time”?

That was in the original Bill as introduced by the Minister of Lands at that time.

But that was amended. You are now deceiving the people.

I notice that the sense of justice of the advocate on the other side is again being drowned by his political interests. The hon. member should remember that I clearly said that I was speaking of the Bill as it was before the second reading, the Bill which was passed here without any division before it was changed in any respect. I shall now read the section as it appeared in that Bill—

Go on now.

I shall go on. The proviso which now follows was not then present in the Bill as read a second time. That proviso was inserted in the Senate. The Senate made the following alteration in the Bill by adding this proviso—

Therefore this House on the motion of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and with the support of the thirteen members whose constituencies I have mentioned agreed to the principle of this Bill at the second reading. I maintain that that Bill went further than this Bill. If the hon. member for Pietersburg is in earnest, and if it is not purely a matter of political hypocrisy when he feels so annoyed …

I have already ruled that the word “hypocrisy” may not be used. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw, Mr. Speaker. I ask whether the hon. member is in earnest. Does he feel that his sense of honesty is offended when he tells us that in 1937 he did not agree to an Act which was of retrospective effect? On that occasion he, as a responsible member of this House, accepted the Bill at the second reading and in that Bill there were provisions which we even did not insert in the present Bill—is or was at any time a holding ! This therefore means that a man who in 1937 had been in possesion of his title deeds for as long as 10 years would still have been subject to the provisions of that Act, and even if thereafter the land had been transferred three or four times it would still have been subject to the restrictions of that Bill. Are we responsible people in this House when we talk like the members on the other side have talked about this Bill? Are we not deceiving the people and are we not deceiving the settlers in particular when we want to make them believe that we are by this Bill now infringing the rights of the people when the Act of 1937 did not infringe their rights? Let us declare straightforwardly that this legislation is not pleasant legislation. All duties are not pleasant. But the motives which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad as a responsible Minister had in 1937, the motives which forced him to introduce that Bill and to pilot through this House, are they no longer existing today?

Was that Bill passed in that form?

We have heard a great deal about the violation of contracts and the infringement of private rights. But when we are infringing private rights today, then I challenge hon. members on the other side to tell me whether such infringement did not also take place in 1937. If today this means doing an injustice, then it was also doing an injustice to the settlers at that time. What is the difference; of course it can be said that two wrongs do not make a right. But then the members on the other side should admit that they were wrong in 1937. Then they will at least be honest. But when they want to disguise the position and want to make the country believe that this proposal of today is poles apart from those that were accepted in 1937, then they are deceiving the people. We should not make the fate of those people worse and we should not create dissatisfaction where there should be no dissatisfaction. Let the friends over there admit frankly, if they think so, that they made a mistake in 1937. Let the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and the hon. momber for Pietersburg who led the attack here this morning come here and say that they made a mistake in 1937, if they think that this Bill is a mistake. But I want to go back somewhat further. There has been much discussion about the question of parents and children. Well, the hon. member for Wolmaransstad will remember that after the by-election in Marico, the then member for Marico (the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit) proposed a motion in this House that the conduct of the then Minister of Lands should be investigated. In connection with that matter letters were read, letters written by the Department of Lands to settlers in Marico. I only want to quote one extract of what appears in Coloumn 981, Hansard, Volume 33—

That is a letter written to a settler in Marico by the Department of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. That man had to go to the Minister with his hat in his hand and beg permission to keep his blind parents with him on the holding. He had to beg the Minister for mercy and humane simpathy to give him permission to keep his blind parents on his holding.

Do you approve of that?

When a man has blind parents who have nowhere else to go and who can find a home with a settler I most strongly approve of permission being given to them to stay with the settler. Hon. members now say that we want to humaliate the settlers so much that they have to ask for a pass; was that not done also at that time? I ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad whether at that time he had the right to do so, and if he had that right, then the present Minister also has that right. If the hon. member did not have the right at that time, then his actions against the settlers were illegal. He can have his choice. What is most conspicuous to me is that the man who seconded and supported that motion was nobody less than the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). He approved of the motion of the Rev. C. W. M. du Toit. I will just read this to you in Column 986—

I do not want to read everything he said because that would be an unnecessary waste of time.

You are already wasting much time.

You are afraid to let us speak.

Take away the guillotine. You cannot pass your legislation without the aid of the guillotine.

That is what happened to parents in 1938. That is the same provision we introduced today, namely to lay down that the Minister shall have the right to decide which parents and which children shall stay on the holdings. That is exactly the same thing which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad did in his department. We ask once more, are those motives still valid today? The hon. member for Pietersburg says that he did not agree with the Act, but then he gave his Minister a false impression at that time. The reply of the then Minister to the debate was this…. I want to emphasise again that this it not the Bill as changed in the Committee stage or in the Senate; this was the far-reaching Bill as agreed to at the second reading. In Column 6416 the Minister said—

Even by the hon. member for Pietersburg.

Where is that welcome today? Where is that love today? The welcome has been changed to estrangement; the love has been turned into bitterness, because their political fortunes have changed. The hon. Minister went further. He said that he could not understand the attitude of some hon. members. He said—

Hear, hear!

He furthermore said—

Who said so?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad. He furthermore said—

Well, can we adduce stronger reasons for the acceptance of the third reading of this Bill, than the reasons given by the hon. member? No, the hon. members over there are not honest about it. I repeat that I challenge those hon. members to prove that in this legislation we are doing something which was not done in the 1937 Act. The 1937 Act is retrospective in its effect. The 1937 Act is as much an infringement of private rights as is the present Bill, and if there were any reasons to pass this legislation in 1937, then we want to hear today from the hon. member there what the reasons are why we should not agree to it now. The speculative spirit is more rife today than ever before. I agree with the hon. member for Wolmaransstad that.it would have been desirable to make these restrictions applicable in general, but at that time he explained his difficulties and they are the same difficulties still existing today. I maintain that when we want to prevent the uneconomic subdivision of land in the interest of soil conservation in general, then I fully agree with it. The argument for the hon. member for Pietersburg is that we should not make this Bill retrospective in its effect. Does he mean by that that we should only apply it to the soldiers? If we were to say that we are not going to make this legislation retrospective and if we want to be consistent then we must first repeal the 1937 Act and say that we shall start right at the beginning again.

Repeal it.

Who is going to send in the largest number of applications for holdings? The soldiers. Are we going to restrict those soldiers who sacrificed everything for the safety of their country, whilst all other people will be allowed to go on without any restrictions?

Is your idea that land should in future be allotted to soldiers only?

No, but the hon. members will agree that as we have thousands of men in the army who will return to resume their civil life, the largest number of applications will come from them. We will receive many more applications from the soldiers than from the civilian population, for the civilians are making applications all the time.

Is your idea to talk so much that we shall not be able to reply?

They pretend that they now have such a preference for the soldier and they realise that the soldier also has a vote, but now that we want to protect the soldiers they want to see that that land shall be encumbered with a restriction which they want to have removed from all other lands. I conclude ….

You ought to be ashamed of yourself, it is scandalous the way you are wasting time.

The hon. members on the other side ought to be ashamed of themselves. They have already wasted so much time.

You over there ought to be ashamed of yourselves for introducing a guilliotine motion and then talking nonsense here.

I say that the hon. members there ought to be ashamed of themselves and if they still have a sense of shame left I want to make this final appeal to them to admit that the 1937 Act is wrong; let them admit their mistakes and then let us come together and see what we can do for the best interests of the settlers.

You are too stupid.

Order, order!

But to say that we are doing something today which they did not do in 1937, that we are going further than they went in 1937 with regard to the rights of the settlers, is a deception, and I should like to make use of this opportunity, before the legislation passes its final stage, to contradict this with all the strength at my disposal.

On a point of personal explanation, may I just say the following in connection with the remarks of the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson. I do not want to make a speech. I should like to say that at the discussion on this one amendment to Section 9 under which the rights of settlers were to be curtailed, I did not vote in favour of that section. On the previous occasion I was a Whip and took part in the division, but at the other division I did not vote in favour of the section.

The hon. member who has just sat down, the member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) accused the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that the latter as a lawyer did not understand the Bill; I do not know whether it would perhaps be disallowed to say so in this House, but I would like to say that the passage the hon. member read from the Act was a deliberate distortion.

The hon. member may not use the word “deliberate.”

Withdraw it.

I just want to …

Order, order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw the word “deliberate”.

On a point of explanation, may I just say that the hon. member probably did not listen. I read from the Act ….

It was the Bill you read from.

I hope you will deduct these few minutes from my time. I shall read Section 9 without omitting any words—

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) is a lawyer and does not understand the Act. I want to challenge him to get up and show me in the Act of 1937 that it contains the following provision—

Where do you find that in the 1937 Act? I challenge hon. members on the other side to show us where that can be found. I also challenge them to show us where there is a provision of retrospective effect in the 1937 Act with regard to the transfer of land. I challenge the Minister and his whole party to prove this. Take however sub-section (3) of Clause 3. I challenge any hon. member over there to indicate where that is to be found in the 1937 Act. If the hon. member has a conscience, as he says, he should get up and justify the assertions made there. This is the provision—

Nonsense.

The Minister should consult his law advisers. I challenge him. The Minister himself promised to rectify this when the hon. member for Pietersburg spoke on the second reading. I challenge the Minister to prove that this is nonsense. This is the most inhuman legislation ever placed on the statute book of any country. This is unscrupulous legislation on the part of the Minister and of those supporting him. Members of his own party come to see us in the Lobby and tell us “We are violating our consciences in order to help the Minister”. This morning I received a letter from one of the most prominent and active Saps in a near-by constituency. He has no settlement holding but a bond from the Land Bank and he is afraid that this Minister will even bring Land Bank farmers under this legislation. The supporters of the Government are congratulating us on our opposition against this Bill. I want to ask the Minister whether he has not got something like a conscience; is he not afraid of the future— if not the immediate future, then the hereafter? What is worse, a distinction is now going to be made between the man who has a bond from the State and the man who has a bond from the Land Bank. There is not a single item in respect of which the State assists a settler under Section 11, for which a mortgagee of the Land Bank does not also receive assistance. They receive the same advances as the mortgagees of the Land Bank. I challenge the Minister and his side of the House to go around among the settlers and to explain from the platforms what the implications of this Bill are. We are so deeply concerned about this Bill that we want to tell the Minister that we shall go through the country from platform to platform to explain what this Bill means, and we shall address not only the settlers but also every person who has a bond from the Land Bank.

I thought you wanted to go and explain your policy of neutrality in regard to the war.

What does surprise one is that the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) has strayed so completely from the road he used to follow and that today he is opposing what he supported in the past. Mention me one thing which the hon. member advocated before 1939 and which he is not fighting against today.

I stand 100 per cent. where I have stood all those years.

I understand that when I was absent I was attacked by the hon. member for Ermelo and that he said that I had welcomed the Act of 1937. We passed the 1937 Act after the Act in connection with unbeneificial occupation and we partly welcomed the Act, on condition, however, that the Minister would incorporate certain amendments during the passage through the Senate. The hon. member said that we shall want to repeal that Act. I shall be in favour of its repeal, for the application of the Act has been entrusted to a wrong Minister, who makes abuse of the Act and who administers it in a way which was never intended. We feel that we must use the strongest language at our disposal in the condemnation of legislation of this nature. We feel that we owe it to the country and more in particular to the settlers who look to the Minister and to Parliament for the protection of their rights. I therefore want to support wholeheartedly the proposal of the hon. member for Pietersburg.

I think after the speeches we have now had …

On a point of order, may we speak again after the Minister has finished?

Yes, unless the Minister replies.

May the Minister speak again afterwards?

Yes, but the Minister cannot reply to the debate now.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister. He introduced the guillotine. He should give this side an opportunity to speak.

I am compelled to reply to all the accusations made against me. I have been accused of acting in a diabolical way and it was said that my proposals here are the work of the devil.

Can the Minister reply now?

It seems to me the Minister wants to reply to the debate. He cannot do so unless other hon. members do not want to speak any more.

I shall give my reply later.

On a point of explanation: when I spoke of diabolical, I did not mean to say that the Minister is a diabolical person. He is an angel but his policy is diabolical.

This morning we heard it said again that through this legislation we are going back to the days of slavery, and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) made the remark that he is not prepared to reply to stupid persons. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad furthermore referred to the hon. member for Ermelo here and remarked “There you’ve got another Jew”. I do not want to reply to such personalities.

You are going back to the ark.

I think that is unworthy of the hon. member. I still have a certain amount of respect for him as a former Boer General, but now he has stooped to abusive language and that is beneath his dignity. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. T. Naudé) spoke here of a breach of contract. He is an attorney and ought to know what he is talking about. I hope he will no longer accuse the hon. member for Wolmaransstad of that, for I want to ask the hon. member for Pietersburg whether, if this Bill means a breach of contract, Section 9 of the 1937 Act did not also mean a breach of contract. That section lays down that the restrictions shall be enforced after the date of the coming into operation of the Act. Is that not a breach of contract? The hon. member for Wolmaransstad knows what the law was before and why he changed it and he knows that Section 9 introduced new restrictions for the settlers. If that was not a breach of faith, why is this Bill then stamped as a breach of faith? Absolutely no additional burden is thereby placed on the settlers.

Why then this Bill, if it does nothing more?

I shall explain that. It was said here today that the settler will never be able to become the owner of the land, owing to this Bill. What prevents him from becoming the owner? This Bill? No, the Act of 1937 prevented him to become an owner if he was not already an owner at that time. I do not admit that, for as long as the settler stays on the land, he will not be subject to any more restrictions than those that apply to him now. The only restriction is that he may not sell land without the consent of the Minister. If he does not sell the land, he remains on the land and no further restrictions are placed upon him. As soon as he sells the land, the new restriction comes into force, but it does not apply to the settler but to the subsequent owner. Is that subsequent owner better than the settler? What was the intention of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad when he introduced this Bill at that time? Was it his intention to safeguard the land for posterity, or was it merely to make slaves of the settlers? The argument is now being used that the servitute will turn the settlers into slaves. Did the hon. member for Wolmaransstad therefore go out of his way to make them slaves? The hon. members over there now come along and say that we are making kaffirs of the settlers’ sons, that they are being chased from the land like natives, and that they have to carry passes if they want to stay there. I want to ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad why he applied those provisions to the settlers in 1937? I told him the other day on some other occasion, that if he had the right to apply those provisions in his legislation, then the present Minister should also have the right to do the same. If he did not have that right, then he acted illegally. I am prepared to mention the names of two old men of 70 years of age whose sons were driven from the holdings in 1938 on the instructions of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad. That was done during the Ministry of that hon. member, and if necessary I shall mention the names here, so that the fact may be verified from the documents of the department. The first one was Mr. Willem Dreyer of Riversdale and the other one is Mr. A. Bronkhorst, Goedgedag, P.O. Silent Valley. The hon. member gave instructions that the sons of these people had to leave the farms immediately.

That is not correct.

And then we have to listen to all these futile interruptions. Let the hon. member for Wolmaransstad get up here and say that this was not the case. Why did those boys have to carry passes, as they maintain. I do not want to take up the time of the Opposition, for they are anxious to make use of it, but I cannot refrain from pointing out the misrepresentations that have taken place here. Mr. Speaker has ruled that we may not use the expression “hypocrisy”, but I maintain that these are glaring distortions of fact.

The hon. member must not use the word “hypocrisy” when he knows that he may not do so.

I only want to indicate, that I cannot indicate strongly enough my disapproval of the glaring distortions of fact that have taken place here. I hope that the people will take notice of it, when comparing this legislation with the legislation already on the statute book.

I just want to tell the hon. Minister of Lands that I take exception against the Minister hammering on the one expression I used, viz. that this Bill is a “ diabolical ” measure, and taking that as a personal insult. The hon. Minister knows that I have always approached him with the greatest courtesy, and I feel that he should not make that expression the main point and leave alone all the other arguments I put forward. There has been a great deal of discussion here about the provisions of the 1937 Act as compared with the legislation contained in this Bill. I do not want to dwell on that point for I feel that the 1937 Act has been used by hon. members on the other side solely with the intention to put up a smoke screen for the public outside, as far as this Bill of the Minister is concerned. I do not want to say any more about that, but I want to discuss the merits of the Bill itself. I want to do so because I should like to prove to the Minister of Lands that my attack on this Bill does not amount to a personal attack on him as Minister of Lands, but that my attack is based purely on facts. I am fully convinced that the Minister of Lands is building a wall around the settlers by means of this legislation. He is busy erecting a ring-wall around them, and I should like to dwell a moment on this point in order to find out whether the Minister of Lands is erecting that wall for the protection of the settlers so that they may continue their normal process of development which we consider to be the ideal process of development of the settler in South Africa.

If the Bill is considered on its merits, why then are these personal attacks made on us?

I did not become personal. If the Minister can prove to me here that he is erecting this wall around the settlers so that they may be protected by it and continue with their process of development, then I shall agree with him. But the Minister should also remember that there is such a thing as a prison wall. He is trying to confine the settler within that wall in order to hold him inside that wall with perpetual restrictions and limitations. He is trying to separate the settler from the farming community. I maintain that the Minister of Lands by means of this wall which he is constructing around the settlers is totally suppressing the settlers’ progress, so that they will not be able to develop into independent and self-supporting farmers. I do not intend making personal attacks, but I maintain that this legislation is a violation of the healthy evolution which any sound settlement policy should make available for the settlers. If one could ever speak of rigid legislation, then it can be said of this particular legislation. The Minister is creating, as far as the settlers are concerned, a position of absolute rigidity. If he is going to make these provisions applicable for all times to those settlers, what chance do these people have to ever live up to their excellent farming characteristics through which they might become independent farmers in our country? You are now violating the dynamic principle of the legislation which gives the settler the opportunity to develop in an ideal way, and instead of that you are introducing the static principle in our legislation. In other words you are engaged on creating an absolutely rigid position in the country. The individuality of the farmer, that strong individualism of the farmer which used to be the essence of the development of farming in our country is now to be eliminated through this rigid legislation now to be passed. You are not taking into account this strong individualism of the farming population of our country. I therefore want to ask the Minister to reconsider this matter once more and not to pilot through all the provisions of this Bill as they are now. I again ask him to afford an opportunity to the excellent characteristics of the Afrikaner to be demonstrated, and not to introduce legislation which will deaden them. Those excellent characteristics are initiative, progressiveness, persistence and perseverance which have given rise to an energetic community of farmers in our rural districts. Give the settlers the opportunity too to show in that way what they can do, but do not pass legislation of this nature which will for all times separate them from the rest of the farming community. If you want to Surround them by a wall, why not erect the wall around the whole farming community? Why do you differentiate in such a manner that the farmer on the one farm is able to really employ his abilities and to pass through a natural development, whereas the farmer on the other farm will not be able to do so and whose abilities will therefore become deadened completely so that those excellent characteristics of initiative, progressiveness, persistence and perseverance which are essential for the development of an energetic farming community and a healthy settlers’ community, cannot find expression in our country and must therefore wither. We are not making personal attacks on the Minister of Lands, but these are the foundations of our objections and the general basis of this discussion. I want to ask the Minister of Lands whether he can show us that this settlement policy is based on a healthy foundation of scientific assistance. There is nothing of the sort to be found in it. His system has no sound scientific basis of assistance and if he on top of that passes this legislation, there will be a complete deadening of those characteristics which are essential for the ideal evolution of the settler, as I pointed out before. The hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) is not present at the moment. He had a lot to say about this Bill and about the attitude of hon. members on this side, but I want to give him the assurance that after this session of Parliament I shall pay a visit to the Rustenburg constituency to appear with him on the same platform— there we shall not indulge in personalities but discuss this Bill on its merits—in order to explain this Bill to the settlers and to find out what their verdict about it is. I maintain that this measure in our eyes is shocking legislation. Poor people came to the settlements such as the Hartebeestpoort scheme. They were told what the conditions were under which they would obtain and be able to develop the land. They were told that they could develop to become independent farmers once more. They gave of their very best and tried to progress in such a manner that they would once more become independent. They on their part acted in an honest manner, and I ask whether it is honest on the part of the Minister to introduce such a Bill which alters the conditions in regard to those people, so that onerous restrictions are applied to them which will make it very difficult for those people ever to become independent again? I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Lands to deny that he refused to issue Crown grants to 38 settlers who had already paid all their instalments, who had met all their financial obligations towards the Department, and that he refused them in view of this legislation which he intended to introduce? Does this not amount to totally depriving those people of the stimulus which is so essential to urge the farmer on towards independence. This does not apply to these 38 settlers only, for since that time there have been many other cases of that nature. I want to ask the Minister of Lands—I shall not take up any more of the time of the House because I know there are still other hon. members who want to take part in the debate—whether he is aware of the fact that by this Bill he is promoting the migration of people from the rural areas to the towns and cities? The Minister’s reply will be that he has to do this in order to prevent overcrowding. On a previous occasion I told the Minister that overcrowding in the rural areas is something which of course adjusts itself in an ideal manner. The Minister need not be afraid of that. Overcrowding on the platteland so to say regulates itself. I want to tell the Minister once more that there is no scientific basis for this settlement policy of his. I want to finish now with this remark addressed to the Minister of Lands. He should not think that when we launch an attack on a Bill of this nature, we are attacking him in person. The Minister cannot assert that ever on any occasion did I make personal accusations against him or did I behave discourteously towards him. If he is able to tell me that I opposed him in a discourteous way, then I am prepared to withdraw it. No, we want to deal with this Bill on its merits and because we are convinced that it is a step in the wrong direction we attacked the Bill. I want to ask the Minister once more to reconsider some of the provisions of this Bill.

A great deal of time has been devoted to the discussion of this Bill and I should like to associate myself with what was stated by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) when he made an appeal to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). He must not trample under foot the respect we had for him in the past by the type of language he used here. He occupied a responsible position as Minister but he used language across the floor of this House which is not becoming of him and which makes it difficult for us to retain the respect we had for him.

I must ask the hon. member to come to the Bill.

This Bill has been introduced for sound reasons. It has been introduced for the same reasons as those which necessitated the amendment that was made in 1937 to the Land Settlement Act. The same reasons which necessitated that amendment still exist today and is the reason for the amendment that is now being made. The purpose of our Land Settlement Act has always been to provide the poor person who wants to go and farm with a livelihood and with an opportunity of getting back on his feet again. It has, however, been found that abuse was made of the holdings given to them, and therefore an amendment was made in regard to the position of sons and other relations living on the holdings. But why were further amendments made? Was it not because abuse was made of the holding for speculation and other purposes, as has already been proved in this House? This legislation is being brought forward because we want to rectify those things.

You had many opportunities previously of speaking and why don’t you resume your seat now?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad had his opportunity and I am utilising this opportunity of saying a few words in regard to the Bill. We cannot deny that abuse has been made óf Section 11 and of the other provisions of the Land Settlement Act, under which land on settlements has been obtained, and for that reason it was necessary to bring in an amendment. Let us just take the position into review. I want to ask the present Minister of Lands in all seriousness to have a census made of all the land allotted since 1912 under Sections 10 and 11 or all the other sections of that Act under which people obtained land and then to ascertain how much of that land still belongs to those people and how much of it has already gone out of their hands. It will be very interesting to obtain those figures. I should now like to examine further why these amendments are being proposed in the Bill and why it is necessary to lay down such restrictions. In this House this Bill has been described as fraud, violation of contract and so forth — strong language was used in this House and it was stated that fraud has been perpetrated on those people. It has been stated that it is a wicked and even a diabolical measure; that there has never been more deceitful methods and all such things. But has this measure not been adopted for the very reason to protect the settlers against the deceitful, wicked and unscrupulous methods of speculators, advocates and attorneys, and companies who are busy getting possession of the land of those poor people? That is the reason why it was necessary for the Minister to introduce this Bill. Let us just go to districts such as Zoutpansberg, Barberton and Waterberg and see into whose possession a lot of the land of those people has gone—people who obtained land under the Land Settlement Act of 1912? Let us just enquire from which people the Native Trust purchased a lot of that land; let us examine which people made £20,000 and £30,000 out of land purchased by the Trust and on which they took options, knowing that that land would be purchased by the Trust. Let us investigate to see if there are members of the Native Trust who made money out of it. It is because of that type of thing — because of those dishonest methods employed — that we need this measure. It is to protect those people against the unscrupulous attorneys and other people who have exploited them in this way and who have contributed towards making those people poor whites again that we require this measure. There are many of those cases and when we speak about these things there are no interruptions from the other side. I am prepared to go and justify the reasons which compelled the hon. the Minister to bring this measure before the House. I am prepared to show the people the true state of affairs and to tell them that they must not let themselves be driven off their land by speculators. I want to say it definitely that whenever I have seen the Minister and explained the position to him, he has always agreed. If an old and sickly father was living on the holding and I asked the Minister to give permission for that person to continue living there, he has always given his permission. We did, however, hear about a case in which permission was refused in 1937 and in 1938. I deplore the strong language used in this House, and I should just like to say that it is not becoming of those hon. members, when matters of the greatest interest to settlers are discussed, to mislead them and to make them understand that they are being deceived. It is not becoming of them to maintain that there is a breach of contract. These measures are being taken to protect the settlers against themselves and against the exploiters of the country.

If this legislation were intended to prevent speculation, other provisions might have been inserted in this Bill in order to prevent speculation. It would not have been necessary to make the settlers the perpetual bywoners of the Government. Hon. members here now talk about the 1937 Act, and hon. members on that side of the House do as if this is the only provision contained in that Act. The Act of 1937 dealt with many other things for coming to the aid of the settlers. Amongst other things sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Settlement Act of 1931 was amended by substituting the word “forty” by the words “sixty-five”. I want to ask the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) whether he has read the Act.

Yes, many a time.

In that Act there were various other provisions and for that reason the second reading was agreed to, but the difficulty was to be found in Section 9 of that Act. When I come before a judge and want to quote an Act, I am not going to quote a Bill. The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) wanted to make us believe that he was reading from the Act when in fact he was reading from the Bill. What must this House think of him? I wonder what the hon. member for Swartruggens (Mr. Henny) will think of him. The hon. member for Ermelo is very fond of quoting from Hansard, but he does not read everything that can be found in Hansard. The whole difficulty arose in connection with Section 9. I now want to refer the hon. member to Hansard, Volume 30, column 6422. There he will find—

I move—

That was during the Committee stage.

That was the only point over which there was a difference of opinion. Did the hon. member say so? The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) said the following in connection with Clause 8, (see in column 6422)—

The hon. member for Ermelo wanted to pretend that this Act passed the committee stage without any more ado and that it was only altered in the Senate. That happened in regard to Section 8. He knows that this is the case. He comes here with a Bill and reads it as if it were the Act. I hope he did not do that deliberately.

On a point of explanation: I repeatedly emphasised the point that the second reading containing the principle of the Act was passed without a division.

That is exactly where the hon. member is not honest. He does not say what all the provisions of the Act are. He does not say that the Act provided benefits to the settlers in other respects. He did not say that they got an extension of time and a reduction in the interest rate. As far as those sections were concerned, the members all agreed, but here we are dealing with alienation and on that point the members of the Nationalist Party made objection. The hon. member, however, wants to make the House believe that the alterations were effected in the Senate. I am now going to read everything, for he is the great orator in this House. He wants to explain what the Act says and then he comes here with the Bill and explains that as if it were the Act.

That was not my intention.

I again ask the hon. member for Ermelo whether he will go into a court and quote a Bill before the magistrate pretending it to be the Act? If he would do so, I would feel very sorry for his clients, and if he would explain the Act in that way to his constituents, I maintain that he would be deceiving them. I hope he will not do so deliberately. On the amendment moved by Mr. J. H. Grobler in regard to Section 9, the Minister of Lands got up immediately and said—

Was that in the Senate?

That took place here during the committee stage. The Minister got up immediately when the then member for Brits made an appeal to him and he accepted the amendment. Thereupon Mr. Geldenhuys said—

But the Minister did accept it.

Just read on.

The hon. member for Ermelo the other night wanted to give the impression that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) had voted in favour of the Bill. He never referred to Clause 9. He simply took the Hansard report and said that the hon. member for Waterberg had voted for the Bill, whereas the core of the whole Act was to be found in Section 9 which dealt with alienation; apart from that he comes here and reads the Bill word for word, but when he came to the proviso he did not read it. It is to be found there.

But not in the Bill.

No, it is to be found in the Act. This proviso reads as follows—

And going on, you will find the following in Section 8—

And then the hon. member for Ermelo wants to make us believe that there is nothing in this Bill which is not contained in that Act. I now ask him whether there is any mention in this Act about “retrospective effect”.

In the 1937 Act, yes.

It is not there. I have read it out here from the Act and the hon. member for Zwartruggens will have to agree with me that there is no reference to “retrospective effect”. The hon. member wants to argue here on a principle of law, but he has got nothing to substantiate his argument. Sections 8 and 9 make this Act applicable only to holdings to be allotted in the future.

What about lease agreements?

The lease agreements have got nothing to do with the Act. You may enter into a lease and you may embody any provisions in it; the provisions of a lease differ completely from the provisions of an Act. If there had been leases, they would not have the validity which they would have had if they had been based on this Act. We now come to this section and the voting on it. Section 9 makes provision for restrictions on the alienation or encumbrance of holdings. A divison took place on that and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) voted against it, but the hon. member for Ermelo did not say so in this House.

Of course I said it.

The hon. member stood there and spoke, but did not mention this fact.

He read out 13 names.

He intimated that that Act had been supported by the hon. member for Waterberg. The persons who voted against it were—

Bremer, K.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Strydom, J. G.

Van der Merwe, N. J.

Van der Merwe,

R. A.T.

Vosloo, L. J.

And then the hon. member comes here and wants to pretend that this legislation is exactly the same as that of 1937.

You did not listen.

If it is exactly the same legislation, why need the Minister introduce this Bill? The hon. member will remember that in his speech the Minister said that he intended making good certain flaws in the Act. These things which were left out by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, the present Minister considers to be flaws, and he now wants to rectify those flaws. He now wants to introduce certain amendments, and we maintain that the amendments he proposes to make amount to a breach of contract. It is an infringement of existing rights, and no person in this House will be willing, if he has a contract with somebody else, a contract with the State, that the State should afterwards come along and insert other provisions in order to bind him more closely. No, this Government is busy making bywoners of the settlers. They have no sympathy with the settlers. This Act of 1912 was introduced to afford an opportunity to the less privileged people to obtain land with State assistance, and when they have met their obligations, the Governments gives them their transfer. This latest piece of legislation is now going to prevent that, and nobody will be able to convince any right-minded person that this legislation of the Minister of Lands is an honest attempt to assist the settlers.

We may differ from each other in this House, as we often do on matters of principle, but no hon. member has the right in this House, if he wants to claim the respect of other members, deliberately or otherwise if he should know better, so to represent matters in this House that people outside gain a completely distorted impression of the actual facts.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I want to settle accounts with the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) as far as this matter is concerned. Until recently it would not have mattered so much if the hon. member for Ermelo had been guilty of the thing he was guilty of the other day, because he was an ordinary member and one would not have paid too much attention to him. But today he is not an ordinary member. The other side of the House has seen fit to make him Deputy-Chairman of Committees, and he sometimes occupies the Chair, and then according to the Standing Rules and Orders, we are compelled, and we desire to do so, to view him in quite a different light and to show respect to him, which otherwise he might not be entitled to in our opinion. If he is in the Chair, he is expected to be impartial, and not to act in a party-spirit. This spirit of impartiality he cannot maintain and uphold if as an ordinary member he is guilty of the things he was guilty of the other day.

May he say nothing at all?

He can have his say as long as he sticks to the truth. I listened to the hon. member the other day. What was the position when he was addressing the Committee? He was speaking when the guillotine motion was enforced, and he availed himself of that opportunity, when we were deprived of an opportunity to reply, to create a false impression. That false impression has gone abroad and only now, a few days later, have we the chance of replying. The impression created by him has gone forth into the country and anybody reading what he said, and perhaps never being informed of what the reply to those assertions was, will remain under that false impression and will believe that what the hon. member said, was correct.

It was correct.

I have always still cherished the hope that the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) has a proper conception of the truth.

You are the only one who knows what the truth is?

I am also coming to the hon. member. The hon. member for Ermelo knew that day when he created this wrong impression, that no member on this side would have the opportunity to gainsay what he had stated. He created the impression that not one of us voted against Section 9 in 1937.

No, I was referring to the second reading.

But the whole debate that day was on Clause 9, and then the hon. member for Ermelo conveyed the impression that no member on this side voted against Section 9. When by way of interjection I denied that, the hon. member for Potchefstroom (Mr. Van der Merwe) challenged me to prove that I had voted against it. He also wanted to create the impression that I did not vote against the clause.

On a point of explanation, we were discussing the fact that no division was demanded on the second reading.

The whole debate was on Clause 9, and then the hon. member for Potchefstroom came under the spell of the distorted representation of matters by the hon. member for Ermelo to such an extent that he even dared to challenge me to prove that I had voted against. Now the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) has clearly indicated that we voted against Clause 9.

Did you oppose the second reading?

The hon. member cannot hide behind that flimsy excuse. What did he say? He said that the whole principle of the 1937 Act was embodied in Section 9, that the whole Act hinges on Section 9, and then he continued to argue that because we did not vote against the second reading, we approved of Section 9. Is that true? The opposite is correct. The Bill of 1937 was a Bill amending the Land Settlement Act, and Clause 9 was only a part of that Bill. In that Bill were contained a number of clauses to which nobody objected, and Clause 9 as far as its length was concerned, was only a small part of the whole Bill. The Bill as a whole was welcomed by everybody, with the exception of certain provisions which were opposed, inter alia Clause 9. Now it is clear how the hon. member availed himself of the opportunity under the guillotine motion to create an entirely false impression in the country, and to convey the impression that because no division was claimed at the second reading, we were in favour of Clause 9. What did they say further? What was the second false impression created by the hon. member? He said that the party I belong to, came forward with the 1937 Bill. Did we come forward with that Bill? It is nothing but an untruth. On the contrary, it was the hon. member’s own party which brought in the Bill. Such a distortion, such a distortion of facts, does the hon. member no credit. The United Party has governed the country and brought in the Bill. What right has the hon. member to say that it was our party? Because the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is today sitting on this side? The hon. member for Ermelo should be ashamed of himself, not only because he is a lawyer, but because from time to time he occupies the Chair in this House. Let me ask him again whether we as a party voted in favour of Clause 9.

You yourself said that it was an insignificant clause.

Mr. Speaker, after that interjection, by which the hon. member intimates that I said that Section 9 of the 1937 Act was an insignificant clause, do you, Mr. Speaker, still feel at liberty to leave the Chair and to ask the hon. member for Ermelo to take your place? He made the statement in your presence.

Did not you say that it was an insignificant clause?

I never said anything of the kind. I said that it was a long Bill and Clause 9, as far as its length was concerned, was only a part of the Bill. We voted against the objectionable clause in that Bill and we are still opposing that provision today. As far as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad is concerned, I take off my hat to him. He is not obstinate. He admitted in the course of the debate that if he came to a wrong conclusion in 1937, that was no reason why he should make the same mistake today. Let hon. members on the other side show the same manliness. But let me return to the hon. member for Ermelo. What does he contend? He says that if we made a mistake in 1937—apparently he admits that a mistake was made on his part—then we should repeal the Act. Why doesn’t he advocate that? It shows that the hon. member is smothering his conscience. He knows that the section in the 1937 Act is wrong, and he is prepared to repeat the same mistake.

Have you ever stated that the 1937 Act was wrong?

Let me once more point out the difference between the 1937 Act and the Bill we have before us. In the 1937 Act no everlasting restrictions were imposed, but it is done in this Bill.

Was that not the position in the original Bill?

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad realised that certain provisions were wrong and he rectified those mistakes, and now he wants to go further and rectify a mistake, but the other side of the House, though convinced that this thing is wrong, are complete serfs of the Minister of Lands and they simply have to toe the line. I regret that the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Raubenheimer) is absent. In the ordinary course of events one does not pay much attention to that hon. member, because I do not know whether it is common knowledge under what circumstances the hon. member’s membership of the Nationalist Party was terminated. I merely want to say that he did not resign as a member of the Nationalist Party, but he was kicked out of the Nationalist Party.

What has that to do with the Bill?

The hon. member for Vryheid (Dr. Steenkamp) wants to know what that has to do with the Bill. I hope he listened to the hon. member for Barberton and I am only reacting as a result of certain allegations made by the hon. member for Barberton. The hon. member for Barberton tried to convey that as far as the purchase of native land is concerned, this Bill will apply to the conditions which have arisen as a result of the purchase of land under the Native Trust Act. He says that this Bill is intended to prevent the satanic and diabolical thing which has given rise to the possibility of attorneys and others making £9,000 profit in connection with the sale of land to the Native Trust. What must one infer from that? That attorneys and others, as a result of the sale of land which has been given under the Land Settlement Act and which was sold to the Native Trust, had made thousands and thousands of pounds, and now the provisions of this Bill are required to prevent that. Is the hon. member unaware of the fact that the land which is being sold to the Native Trust, must be sold to the State under compulsion? Does he not know that the 1936 Act has demarcated a certain part of the country and that land in the demarcated area has to be sold to the Native Trust, and that the question of land settlement does not enter into the question at all?

He means land which has already passed into the hands of other people.

The hon. member stated that this Bill was intended to prevent that kind of thing.

He means speculation.

Father in heaven. How must I explain this matter. He referred to farms which had been sold to the Native Trust, and then the hon. member for Zwartruggens comes along and talks of speculation in connection with land settlement holdings.

The Act did not lay down which farms have to be purchased.

Let me tell the hon. member what the provisions of the Act are. It is laid down that certain areas are set aside as native areas and in those areas the farms will be bought by the State for the Native Trust.

But the names of the farms have not been given.

The farms and their names are enumerated in the schedule. J

And he is not aware of that?

The names of the farms are mentioned in the schedule, and those farms may only be sold to the Trust. If the owner refuses to sell, the State may expropriate for the Trust. Now hon. members on the other side want to create the impression that the Bill purports to prevent speculation in regard to those farms. In addition, it is argued, and the insinuation is made, that hon. members on this side of the House are the cause that a good deal of speculation took place in respect of lands bought by the Trust. We may differ from each other in this House, but let us remain honest when we do. Don’t let us resort to such methods as to create a wrong impression in the country, knowing that it will be very difficult at a later stage to remove that wrong and false impression.

This is a distortion of what the hon. member for Ermelo said.

I have listened to the hon. members. The hon. member for Ermelo took the line all along that Section 9 contained the principle of the Bill of 1937, whilst that was not the case. It was a Bill with a considerable number of important and essential amendments, and for that reason we raised no objection to the second reading and did not vote against the second reading, though we had strong objections to Clause 9.

You were not opposed to Clause 9.

We were. The hon. member should be fair and honest. He has heard what the hon. member for Ermelo said, and I want to advise him not to allow his presence in this House to bemuddle his judgment. I have the Hansard report before me, and on the same page where the second reading is mentioned, it also says that the Committee stage was proceeded with at once and that we on this side of the House voted against Clause 9. The hon. member for Ermelo stated that we were not opposed to Clause 9 and for that reason we did not insist on a division at the second reading. That is in direct conflict with the facts. The House immediately after passing the second reading, went into Committee. We had no objection against the other essential amendments, and therefore let them pass. But the hon. member will notice that we asked a division on Clause 9.

Why was that not mentioned at the second reading?

It was mentioned.

You did not object to Clause 9.

I suppose that is a bolt in the dark, or did the hon. member consult the Hansard report?

No, I did not consult that report.

The hon. member is now on the wrong track. Let me just read what happened at the second reading. On that occasion Mr. Geldenhuys said—

Now the hon. member for Zwartruggens (Mr. Henny) comes along and on the authority of the hon. member for Ermelo says that at the second reading we did not object.

I accept that.

Then I only want to say to the hon. member if he wants to keep his morals unsullied, he should avoid keeping company with the hon. member for Ermelo.

At 12.50 p.m., on the conclusion of the period of two hours allotted for the Third Reading of the Bill, the business under consideration was interrupted by Mr. Speaker in accordance with the resolution adopted by the House on the 20th May, and the amendment proposed by Gen. Kemp dropped.

[The Minister of Lands thereupon replied to the debate.]

I want to be brief. A lot of the time in this debate has been taken up by the question of who voted and who did not vote. But one thing is absolutely clear, and that is that the restricting provisions contained in this Bill, and which have been condemned by hon. members on the other side in such a virulent manner, also are contained in the 1937 Act.

Where?

Before proceeding, I want to say that during the debate the statement was continually made that my department has discontinued issuing titles to settlers who pay cash and who are entitled to their title. I have stated, and I repeat that statement now, that in no case has it been refused to a settler who could lay claim to his title. It has not been refused by me or my department, and moreover we have no right to refuse.

In my constituency there are cases where people have already applied for their title deed a year ago and they have not yet received it.

Then they were not entitled to a transfer.

They have already been on the holdings for more than 20 years.

That is not so.

I can give you the assurance that that is correct.

Nobody who could lay claim to a title, has been refused, because it would be illegal to refuse. This morning I sent a telegram to Pretoria, asking my department to pass transfers without delay in cases where settlers have paid up and where title deeds have been approved of, so that there will be no delay in this matter. That of course applies to people who are entitled to a Crown Land Grant under the Act, and nobody else. One hon. member, I think it was the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) argued that under this Bill I will have power to proclaim a whole divisional council area as an area where these restrictions will be imposed. That is nonsensical. It will only apply to close settlements where we want to prevent companies or rich people buying up the holdings. It will not only be applicable to irrigation settlements. There are also close settlements which are not irrigable. In Waterberg, for instance, you have the Belgium Block, consisting of 40 farms. Then there is the Harmony block in Letaba, consisting of 40 farms, then you have the Heavy Plains, also consisting of 30 or 40 farms. It will be applicable there. I want to be very brief, but I want to say that the whole debate as carried on by the Opposition, has been carried on with a lot of mud-slinging. My person has been attacked time and again and hon. members on the other side have even delved into my private business. I say that their speeches were nothing but propaganda. If the Opposition is opposed to these restricting provisions and if they want to oppose other conditions, good and well, but they have come and launched personal attacks. It has been stated that I am diabolical and what more. I do not object when they attack the Bill, but it was quite unnecessary repeatedly to attack my person. There are particularly two provisions in this Bill which have been attacked. The one is the restriction on bywoners, sons and old people, and the other was in respect of alienation, sub-division and encumbrance and sale of land. Now I say that both these restrictions were already contained in the 1937 Act.

That is not so.

I have already told hon. members on the other side that in this respect there is nothing contained in the Bill which is not contained in the 1937 Act.

Why then did you introduce this Bill?

We have had cases here which have been mentioned, and I can also mention cases where the hon. member for Wolmaransstad ejected bywoners and aged people from holdings.

Where unbeneficial occupation took place.

As far as sub-division, hypothecation and sale of land is concerned, I want to repeat the provisions inserted into Deeds of Sale by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—

That was in the contract.

It was inserted by him. Now he says time and again that this provision was not in his Act, and if it was in the Act, he asks why then this Bill was introduced. I will explain. I stated that there was a defect in the Act. It was the hon. member’s intention that these restrictions should be perpetual. But when we were on the point of applying these restrictions, the Legal Advisers told us that the definition of a holding as such —though the Minister meant it to be different—that once transfer has been granted to a settler, the restriction prohibiting adult sons, bywoners or parents to remain on the holding, falls away. Now as far as the hypothecation and sale of land is concerned, even where the settler obtains transfer, this prohibition still remains, but as soon as the Minister has consented to the sale, it dropped. All I do now is to lay down exactly the meaning of holding, so that the prohibitory provision applies in those cases. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad inserted this in the transfer, but today he tells us that it is dishonest, inhuman and diabolical to put such a thing in the Act. I cannot imagine how a responsible man like him could have placed such an Act in the Statute Book, and then he comes here and says that it is diabolical when we simply reaffirm the provision. The hon. member has already swallowed a lot in his life when he was turning somersaults, but this one is one of the biggest things he will have to swallow. Moreover, he has told us that after the Session he will go to these settlers to explain these things. Well, I will follow him up. He is welcome to do so. I will explain to the settlers this Bill and the 1937 Act. These speeches of the hon. member have been recorded in Hansard. From that we can see what he said when the 1937 Act was introduced, and we will make it our business to enlighten the settlers. The hon. member may say that he will visit the settlers, but he will not be admitted in Marico. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) pleaded here that farms under Section 11 should be excluded. I have a letter here which was received from a settler under Section 11, which I would like to read to the House, but I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading the letter. He says in that letter that rich people and attorneys are out to get hold of these farms of people under Section 11, and he welcomes the protection which will now be granted to these people. As soon as I return to Pretoria, I will have enquiries instituted into the question as to how many farms under Section 11 are still in the ownership of settlers in Letaba and those parts. According to information supplied to me no less than 80,000 morgen under Section 11 have already passed into other hands.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I had almost completed my speech when the House suspended business. I was telling the hon. member for Pietersburg and the hon. member for Waterberg that they had pleaded for the Section 11 farmers, and these are the very areas where speculation with Section 11 farms has taken place on a larger scale than in any other part of the country. In Letaba, for instance, no less than 80,000 morgen, all Section 11 farms, are in the hands of a syndicate, quite apart from farms which have passed into the hands of private people.

That is why we want to assist you.

How do you want to assist us? By allowing this kind of thing? I stated that I promised the House that I will have an investigation made into the position at Zoutpansberg, Pietersburg and Waterberg, to see how many farms have already fallen into the hands of syndicates and private people. I will give the names to the House and it will come as a shock to the country to know how much speculation with those farms has taken place.

Do you carry on speculation at Koffiefontein and Kraaipoort? Is that why you buy so many farms there?

They will be astonished to hear the extent of speculation in those areas. The hon. member for Pietersburg now pleads for the one per cent. areas. He asks that they should be excluded. I want to tell the House that those settlers fall in the part of the country where it is very difficult to make a living. Droughts occur from time to time and it was impossible for those settlers to pay the ordinary rate of interest charged by the Lands Department, and for that reason the Government thought fit to charge these people only one per cent. Do you want me to tell you how many of these one per cent. people have raised money from private financiers and private institutions at eight per cent. and ten per cent. to pay off the one per cent. on the farms? They were not able to pay the one per cent., but in order to be relieved of that condition, they have gone and raised money at eight per cent. and ten per cent. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pietersburg is also one of these moneylenders.

Listen how mean.

Again you are attacking a man who is not in the House.

Possibly he is also one of these moneylenders. This morning he stated that he would advise those people to pay cash and to demand transfer, and he said that he guarantees that they will obtain transfer if they sue the Government. Now they have to go and raise money at eight per cent. and ten per cent., and then they have to go to the attorneys to write to the Government, and there the attorney scores again, and finally not one of these people will succeed, because their applications will be refused under the Act. Where a man under the Act, has tendered his money and asked for transfer and where he has complied with all the provisions of the Act, we cannot refuse transfer to such a party. But the people whom the hon. member now wants to advise to raise money at 8 per cent. and 10 per cent ….

Here is the hon. member for Pietersburg now. Repeat your attack.

Now you are scared.

Repeat what you said.

Not one of these people will succeed, but the result will be that their difficulties will increase.

The court will decide, not you.

Repeat your attack on him.

Imagine! I now must repeat what I said because a moment ago the hon. member was not present here.

No, you are afraid to repeat that.

He always sees to it that he is absent.

You always attack members when they are not here.

I have a letter which I received from the Transvaal. I want to read it to the House—[Translation]

Pardon me for writing to you personally, but I feel that I want to explain a matter to you and I am convinced that it will receive your attention. It is in connection with Crown land and Land Board farms. It often happens nowadays that these farms are transferred to rich people or sold to big financiers, in some cases people sell their farms or let their farms for a large sum and then they take over farms and pay the occupier a small amount for his improvements. Here are cases where land has been taken up over four years, and the land is already again in the market at a very high profit. Possibly you will agree with me that the farms gradually pass from the poor people to the rich people and in the Rustenburg district we have already cases where the people who sold their farms to rich people, are now tramping round. We will applaud you if you, as Minister, will effect a change in that respect, even where the farms are small, so that those farms cannot pass into the hands of large land owners.

But that is the position under the 1937 Act.

I have nothing to add. I wanted to emphasise that the sum total of the difference between us and the Opposition is the restricting provisions. And those restricting provisions are in the 1937 Act.

That is not so.

Those provisions were applied by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) when he was Minister, even in the case of bywoners and sons.

Why then this new Bill?

I have proved …

You have proved nothing.

I have proved that he even went to the length of having these provisions registered in the title deed.

But if it is the same, why do you alter the Act?

It was even inserted in the transfer, and now hon. members say that it is diabolical to demand of these people to carry passes. I merely repeat this to show that that hon. member has done the same thing, but today he comes here and accuses me of these things, without blushing. I must say I cannot understand his make-up.

Motion for the third reading of the Bill put, Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—74:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Madeley, W. B.

Maré, F. J.

Marwick, J. S.

Mushet., J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J,

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Qnselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans, J. B.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—30:

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

What is the effect of this change?

The effect is merely this: When the Bill was originally drafted the new Apprenticeship Bill had not been passed, but as it happens the Senate passed the new Aprpenticeship Bill first, and therefore all the references have to be altered. It is merely a drafting alteration and it does not affect the position of the Bill or of the clause in any way whatever.

Agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 28 and 31 put and agreed to.

I would like to have some information in regard to Item No. 28. This is the case of a civil servant who asks to be transferred from scheme A to scheme B under the Pension Act. I have been informed that that was allowed in the past. If an official, is prepared subsequently to pay in the amounts, which otherwise he would have had to pay, he can be transferred from scheme A to scheme B. I would like to know what the objection is why it was not allowed in this case. Why, if it was allowed in other cases, was it refused in this case.

Mr. Chairman, the petitioner elected in the first instance to come under the scheme to which he subscribed, but we have so many cases in which men, after many years of service, think they would like to change over to a different scheme under the Pensions Act, and it really cannot be allowed. In this case this man, in terms of sub-section 1 of Section 4 of the Government Services Pensions Act, 1936, elected to come under this scheme, and that choice is irrevocable.

What I want to know, you have the power to allow this?

We have the power but the greatest number of petitions are of this nature, and if they are allowed it tends to militate against discipline in the Service. When a man has elected to come under a certain scheme he must abide by it. In this case the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) may think an exception should be made, but if the Committee made an exception in this case it would lead to countless numbers of petitions.

Has it not been granted in other cases? My information is that it has.

We have made exceptions in cases where the petitioner has not been responsible, but where he has elected himself to contribute to a certain fund, we have rejected the petition.

Mr. Chairman, I want to mention case 63 which I had the honour to argue before the Select Committee.

That is why they refused it.

If I interpret the attitude of the Committee correctly there was considerable support for this petition, and I would like to ask the Chairman whether he will not allow this to be referred back to the Select Committee for reconsideration. I would like to hear what the Chairman has to say on the point as to whether there is any objection to the matter being referred back. I move—

Mr. Chairman I want to second the suggestion that this matter be referred back. I want to say, as a member of this Committee, that in my opinion the punishment is rather severe for the act in respect of which it was imposed. I think perhaps, most likely, there was a certain amount of spying out indulged in, and had it not been for that, probably this matter would not have been brought forward at all. This man was in receipt of a salary of £1,400 a year and had been instrumental in carrying out some very large electrical undertakings, and at the time of this occurrence he was preparing a scheme for the Johannesburg electrical services. I want to ask the Chairman to agree to having this case referred back, and possibly next year we may be able to bring forward a little more evidence so that justice may be done.

Mr. Chairman, I will accept this suggestion, and for this reason: This was the only case where I had to exercise my casting vote. This particular petitioner had been subject to disciplinary action by the Department of Railways and I don’t think any advantage can be gained by discussing the case here, but as it was a case where I had to exericse my casting vote I think it only fair to accept the suggestion of the hon. member.

Motion put and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN read the Third Report.

Recommendations Nos. (1) to (16) of Paragraph I and recommendations under Paragraph II put and agreed to.

In Paragraph IV,

I move—

This is the case of a burger who was twice wounded during the Anglo-Boer war. His first wound was under his shoulder and a piece of a bomb remained there. Subsequently he was wounded on his right side. He never applied for a pension under the particular Act. At the time he felt fairly well and thought that he should not apply for a pension. Now he has advanced in age and he finds that the wound is causing him considerable trouble and he has applied to the Commissioner of Pensions, who has given him the following advice—

That is what he has done. In quite a number of cases the same condonation had taken place. Take for instance No. 7 of the second report we have dealt with, the case of N. J. Uys. Then No. 11 in this report, the case of a certain Van Lingen, and also No. 12. Those people were allowed to re-apply as if they fall under the provisions of the Act, and I fail to understand why such permission was refused in this case. All this man asks is that if it can be proved that he received his wounds, he will receive the pension he is entitled to. There are many of these people who were wounded, but who at the time were well off and did not apply for pension. This party now finds in his old age that financially he not as comfortably situated as in those days; his wound is worrying him and he comes to the House and asks the House as a matter of grace, to be allowed to apply for a pension under the Act concerned. I would like to know why it was refused in this case whilst it was granted in other cases. I move the amendment.

I hope the House will approve of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and will give that particular party the opportunity of applying for a pension. It would only be fair and just. I hope there will be no objection. It is all very well to say that such persons have had the opportunity to apply and did not avail themselves of such opportunity. I hope, however, that nobody will object. In connection with No. 8, I want to move the following amendment—

As far as I know the matter briëfly is as follows. This party made good progress in the Civil Service and rendered satisfactory services. He came here in 1928; for a couple of years he was on the temporary staff and always insisted that he should be placed on the permanent staff. Subsequently he was placed on the permanent establishment, and now he asks that the few years he was on the temporary staff, should be added for pension purposes, as he is prepared to pay in respect of those years. That is all he is asking for. That briefly is the case, and I hope that the Chairman of the Pension Committee will raise no objection to the reconsideration of this case.

I move, as a further amendment—

I don’t want to labour the point except to say that the circumstances of this case bring into question one of the fundamental principles of the whole of our Pensions Act. No greater grievance was caused to ex-servicemen generally than the failure of the Government or the failure of the medical authorities attached to the Military Pensions Tribunal to accept the medical evidence of the people who know. The circumstances of this case are that a man who was discharged from military service, due to the fact that he was unfit, was told that he had no more than a few weeks or a few months to live. All the medical men attached to the permanent authority of the Union Defence failed to give this man any hope whatever and he was discharged. He appealed over and over again to the powers that be that he might be permitted to see the greatest authority in the Southern Hemisphere, at any rate in South Africa on this particular condition from which he was suffering; as an exceptional degree of sympathetic treatment he was permitted to come here and see no less an emiment authority than Dr. Lionel Goldschmidt, who is honorary physician and surgeon to the Defence Department. He came here with the certificate of death hanging over his head. Dr. Goldschmidt performed a very wonderful operation and gave him back his life, but he certified that his condition was definitely aggravated by military service. The papers were sent to the Commissioner of Pensions and the Military Pensions Board considered whether this man should receive a pension in terms of the certificate of the greatest authority, the only authority who is capable of expressing an opinion on a man’s condition. This man appealed for a pension or any other relief. That man cannot get a recommendation from this Committee for any other relief. At the moment nothing can be done, so I ask the Chairman of the Select Committee to permit the matter to go to the Government for consideration because I cannot imagine any Government failing to accept the recommendation of their own honorary kidney specialist, the most eminent authority in South Africa. I know the Commissioner of Pensions is sympathetic. His medical authorities who probably told this man that there was no hope for him and that he must die within twelve weeks have been proved wrong. The man is still alive, he has been in and out of hospital at tremendous expense to himself, and I ask the Chairman of the Committee to accept my proposal. The man is denied the right of appealing because he has no further medical evidence to adduce. The same condition existed in the last Pensions Act—I have before me the case of a man who was blinded in the last war. He appealed to the Commissioner without any result and for 15 or 16 years he suffered from his blindness, and then eventually he petitioned Parliament and at the request of the Commissioner of Pensions the man’s case was referred to the Government, The Government gave him a pension with retrospective effect so that he received £3,000 in a lump sum and a pension for life. This mán on whose behalf I am now appealing may not live so long, and I hope his case will be considered.

I do not want to make a proposal in connection with No. 25, but I wish to bring something to the notice of the Committee and to ask if that is actually the position.

It is our old friend again.

I hope that loud voiced friend on the opposite side will not poke his nose in this matter again. I would like the Committee to go in on the merits of the case. All I ask is for you to say whether that is the position or not. I understand Mr. Lange, the person who handed in these two petitions, handed 43 supporting documents to the’ hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). The hon. member for Fauresmith handed these documents to the Prime Minister personally, not the Acting Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister himself. He asked the hon. member for Fauresmith to hand them personally to the Prime Minister and to make sure that these documents would be placed before the Committee. The Prime Minister said that he would hand them over to the Minister of Justice, and now these papers have been lost. All the documentary proofs of this party have been lost. I hope the Chairman of the Committee will tell us whether these documents have been examined by the Committee. I think it places the party in an impossible position to have his petition approved of now. This party’s documents have been lost not through his negligence, but under the protection of the Department. He has a strong suspicion that the documents have not been lost. I do not say that such is the case, but the position is serious if you entrust a Department with certain documents and they are lost. I want to ask the Chairman of the Committee whether those documents were considered by the Committee.

I shall deal with these requests in order. The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) asks if the same concessions could not be granted to Petitioner No. 1, as we recommend in our report. Those other men had not put in their claims on account of war disability before 1927, and we make it a rule that any petitioner who petitions in that way is granted his request. But this is a different case. This man did apply in time. He had been granted a 1 per cent. disability but I’m sorry the hon. member for Winburg was not informed about this. The petitioner was informed that arrangements would be made to have him re-examined with a view to having his position dealt with. He can be re-examined if he will send in a medical certificate from his doctor.

I think you must be mistaken. There are three persons of that name in that town, and he tells me he never applied. I hope you will agree to refer it back to the Committee. It cannot do any harm.

If there is a misunderstanding I am quite prepared to accept it.

Simply to clear up a misunderstanding. If there is no misunderstanding he has his own redress.

Then in regard to the request of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) we cannot accept that. This petitioner resigned from a non-pensionable post.

He never resigned. All he asks for is that his time be recognised.

We have it that he served as departmental clerk in the Department of the Interior until the 5th July, 1938, when he resigned voluntarily. His service was not pensionable. The petitioner was himself responsible for the break in his service, and that has been a consistent rule of our Pensions Committee, that whenever a break in service has been’ brought about through the responsibility of the applicant, we have to turn our faces against the appeal. In regard to the case raised by the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen), I cannot accept his request. This man Curle served only one month in the Union on active service. Curle suffered from disease of the kidneys, which is not attributable to his service in any way whatever; but any activity by him, even running or stooping down, would aggravate his complaint. He joined on the 5th July, 1940, and by the end of August he was operated on for appendicitis. He went on leave to Rhodesia and was discharged at the end of the year. Our Committee cannot accept that his disability was in any way brought about by his war service, which was, only one month in the Union. That is not a case which compares with those which the hon. member for Green Point has mentioned. I think everything possible has been done for this man within reason. He went to the Military Pensions Board; he went to the Appeal Board which considered Dr. Goldschmidt’s certificate, but in spite of that the appeal was disallowed. If the hon. member feels he has further evidence to bring up next Session, I would advise him to re-petition. But as Chairman of this Committee, I feel that we cannot accept having this referred back to our Committee, seeing it is a petition on which a unanimous decision was arrived at. It was a most sympathetic committee, and we hold in front of us the idea of meeting the prayers of the petitioner wherever possible.

Did you not take any notice of Dr. Goldschmidt’s report?

The Committee did consider it; it referred to hydro-nephrososis, which is a disease of the kidneys. The petitioner has no military service to speak of and after that period of one month he was operated on for appendicitis.

[Inaudible.]

It cannot create a disease, and this man’s disability, in the opinion of the committee, is not attributable to military service. He was given a gratuity of £75 by the Special Grants Board, and we are satisfied that unless further evidence is introduced this case has been met. I am sorry I cannot accept the proposal of the hon. member for Green Point.

I should like to have particulars about the case under Section 4.

These papers were handed to our Prime Minister here in the House— that is what our evidence disclosed—and he sent them across to the Department of Justice, and they have been lost; they cannot be traced.

In such safe custody !

That is actually what happened. I asked the member of Parliament who handed them to the Prime Minister, if they were very valuable papers, but he could not say. The petitioner also says in his evidence that all his papers of material value were taken from him at Windhoek during the Great War. His papers were confiscated there. So we cannot attach any material value to these lost papers to warrant granting his prayer. Apart from that a special committee was appointed in 1938, which went into the petitioner’s claim in great detail, and I take it that any papers of special value would have been disclosed to this committee. We have given this petition very careful consideration. It has been before our committee several years and we have gone into it in great detail. If we could meet the petitioner I can assure the House we should do so, but apart from the papers having been lost we cannot obtain evidence that would justify us in meeting the petitioner’s prayer.

I wish to refer to Case 47, L. J. van der Heever, and I want to ask the Minister whether the circumstances disclosed in that case cannot be provided against in the future. The circumstances are that the petitioner, Maj. L. J. van der Heever, is a member of the permanent forces. He is a temporary major and has acted as a temporary major since the 24th October, 1940, and he is drawing the salary of a temporary major. He joined the old Transvaal Colony Service, under the law of 1908, which defines “salary” as an officer’s annual pay. That is all that is necessary for the purposes of the point I am making, and he says: “Will you allow me to be pensioned on the basis of my annual pay since 1910”; and he has offered to contribute to his pension on that basis. But the Public Service Commission has refused to allow him to contribute on that basis on the ground that his permanent rank is that of a captain, and in consequence the petition has been refused. But in the case of other members of the permanent service holding temporary rank who have joined the Forces under the provisions of the Cape Act No. 32 of 1892 they are allowed to contribute to pensions on the basis of their current annual pay. So in the same force you have this very unfair position : officers who have joined under the old Cape Act are in a better position for pension purposes than officers who joined the same force under the Acts of the old Transvaal Colony. It seems to me that is unfair to the force. I am assuming the decision of the Public Service Commission is in accordance with the law and making that assumption it seems to me it is a case in which the Minister should take action so as to allow officers in the same force to be dealt with on the same basis. I therefore ask the Minister to take into consideration the anomaly created by these two different laws and take the necessary steps so that all officers shall be treated in respect of temporary rank, in the same manner.

I should like to make a few observations under paragraph 4. I am serving on the Committee and consequently I want to make a few observations as a result of my experience in connection with certain cases which have been dealt with by the Committee.

The whole paragraph is not open to discussion now. The motion of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and various amendments to that motion are now before the Committee.

The chairman of this committee who submits his report for the consideration of Parliament, gave four reasons why the petition in the case of Curle should not be accepted. The first was that he could not have the report referred back to his committee. I did not ask for that; I asked that it be referred to the Government. This is in the same category as the case of the blind man who for sixteen years suffered from the same handicap as this man suffered. The second point made by the hon. member is that this man had only one month’s active service. Surely the hon. member does not suggest he only had one month’s military service. If that is so, I should like him to read the petition, and he will not then suggest he had only one month’s war service. He had one month’s active service. If the chairman is prepared to deal with this case on this man’s military service, there are few men who have had so long and sustained a record of military service as he has. Ever since this war commenced this man has been in Defence and out of Defence. His whole history was presented in that petition. The chairman of the committee now suggests that the man was called up for one month’s active service. The period of service does not come into it. I know of a man with only a few months and another with a few hours service, who sustained war disability. The man to whom I am referring now was only in the danger line for a very few months. The third point the chairman of the committee made was that he had received consideration as the result of the medical certificate put in by Dr. Goldschmidt. I do not suppose the chairman has had before him— in fact I know he has not—the records of the Military Pensions Appeal Board. The doctor’s report came on the morning that the appeal was heard, and never for a moment did that Military Pensions Appeal Board pay them the courtesy or pay the compliment to Dr. Goldschmidt to ask him why he differed from the recommendations of the Military Pensions Board. I am telling the committee through you, Sir, that Dr. Goldschmidt’s report has never been considered; and if it has been considered I am prepared to stake my reputation on the opinion of a man like Dr. Goldschmidt rather than on people who have only seen papers. Here is a man who has had the opportunity of seeing the petitioner, and seeing him under the knife, and that man is in a better position to know than any medical pensions officer who is adviser to the Commissioner of Pensions. The final point made by the member is that this man has received the sum of £75 from a Special Grants Board. This man came down here, as I told the committeee, owing to the exceptional circumstances of the case, and to make an appeal, and he was allowed to come because he was a person of some consequence in the public service of the country. He was permitted, because of the intervention of the Department of Justice, to come down and have the benefit of the advice of Dr. Goldschmidt, the celebrated surgeon here. He came down, Sir, discharged from the army, and the army had said he had less than one month to live. He came down for the purpose of having an operation. Dr. Goldschmidt did the operation and saved his life, and Dr. Goldschmidt has said that his condition, as he saw him, was definitely aggravated by his war service. The Chairman of this Committee says that the man has received £75. I am sorry the Chairman has raised this point because there is more in this than I can tell the House. It is perfectly true that his operation has cost him in the vicinity of £450, and he was given £75 from the military pensions grant to meet such expenditure. The point is that although this man is occupying a position in a Department of State and receiving a great measure of sympathy and consideration, he is faced with a future of long-sustained medical treatment because of his war service. The Chairman says that his military service was less than a month. Let me tell the Commissioner of Pensions and the House that this man, because of his honesty and nothing else, is being deprived of his pension. We know that when a man comes to be discharged he asks for a board, and is asked: “Have you previously suffered from any pain?” This man said that he had, that he used to suffer from the pain. He said he was being sent to the Middle East to the Second Division but he was found to be suffering from appendicitis and the appendix was removed. The deduction which has been drawn by the medical authorities who are advising the Commissioner of Pensions is this, if the man had a pain internally then it could not have been due to the appendicitis that he was found to be suffering from when in the service. No, Sir, that internal pain could not possibly have been due to appendicitis, but must have been due to this kidney complaint which Dr. Goldschmidt says was definitely aggravated by war service. The Chairman of the Committee is accepting the recommendations of the medical authorities who are advising the Commissioner of Pensions, and I am here in order to try and see that no possible prejudice and injustice shall be done to those who have served this country. There is more than one possible logical deduction to be drawn from a pain that a man suffered internally, and in regard to which he put all his cards on the table. The deduction by the medical authorities was that the internal pain was due to the kidney and not to the appendicitis which was removed prior to his being sent up to take over a regiment in the Second Division. I ask again, with all earnestness, in the hope that an injustice is not going to be done to an ex-service man, that this man shall receive consideration. This is one point where our pension laws break down.

I must read this evidence that we had before the Committee in reply to the hon. member. The Appeal Board, after due consideration of all the evidence, including the certificate by Dr. Goldschmidt, disallowed the appeal, and whatever the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) says, we, as a Committee, had to accept that evidence which has not been proved to be incorrect. The petitioner was called up for full-time military service on the 5th July, 1940, and after a medical examination he was passed A-1 and sent to I.R.C. Depôt at Sonderwater, where he lived under extremely rough and primitive circumstances. I and the hon. member are arguing at cross-purposes because military service and active service are evidently being confused. It is perfectly true that on 5th July he joined up on active service, but he did not leave the Union. Towards the end of August of the same year he was operated on for appendicitis. These are the facts and I don’t want to argue upon them with the hon. member. However much the hon. member for Green Point disagrees with the medical practitioners and the Board, we are convinced that these Boards are impartial and we, as a Committee, must accept their findings. The hon. member for Green Point evidently feels strongly on this, but I still do not feel that he has brought evidence here to justify this petition being referred to the Government. What does the hon. member for Green Point hope to get from this reference? If further evidence can be brought forward next year I have no doubt the Committee will do everything possible to help this man, who did excellent service in drilling men and fitting them for war service. He joined up for active service in July, 1940, and he had one month’s service when he was operated on for appendicitis and sent on vacation. I realise that we will have many cases of this nature that we will have to consider, and I also realise that when we have a man who has been on active service up North, even for one month as the hon. member for Green Point says, he would be regarded differently by the Pensions Committee. We feel that this man has a complaint which is absolutely unconnected with his military service and the medical evidence verifies that. Under these circumstances I cannot agree to the suggestion of the hon. member.

I think I take an entirely impartial view as far as this matter is concerned, and if words had only meaning at all, then the certificate of Dr. Goldschmidt should have carried a lot of weight with the Committee. That has been our experience with appeal boards, that they do not take notice of independent expert witnesses who know the party better than the appeal board, which only has the man before it for an hour or so. Here you have a person who has carried out a successful operation on this man, and who is in a better position to give evidence as to the condition of the man. If this House has any respect for expert advice, then the House should accept Dr. Goldschmidt’s certificate in this case and should hold that the man should receive full recognition. Anybody who is impartial would hold that the appeal board should have accepted Dr. Goldschmidt’s evidence. Let me return to the matter I was discussing. The Chairman of the Pension Committee only read two lines from the evidence of the Secretary for Finance. I hope the Committee will have a little patience when I deal with this case. The position will become clear immediately if I read a few extracts from the petition—

Don’t judge hastily. It continues—

Within 25 days after relinquishing his temporary post, he is offered this position, because they knew him, and he was offered a permanent position in the Department of Labour. Now the man applies for condonement in respect of the 25 days, because otherwise he cannot apply for recognition of his temporary service for pension purposes. Now, listen to what the Department says in its evidence—

That is, from the report of the Department of Finance. But the following is to be found in the report of the Department of Labour—

It is only fair that his previous service should be recognised. The man was in the service of the State in a temporary position, and when he found afterwards that they did not want to give him a permanent appointment he resigned, and within 25 days he was offered a permanent position. He never had the opportunity of contributing towards the pension fund. That is confirmed by the Department. He was a suitable man for the position. That is proved by the fact that he was offered a permanent position within 25 days. He left the service because he had no alternative, and immediately on his resignation, he was offered a permanent position. He accepted. It was not his fault that he resigned subsequently. The Department realised that he was a capable man and they offered him a permanent position within 25 days. I say that the responsibility rests with the Committee to condone this break of 25 days and to recognise his previous service.

I intend to move that all these cases under paragraph 4 should be referred back to the Select Committee on Pensions.

Is this a motion of no confidence?

I do not do this because I do not appreciate the work which the Committee is asked to do.

The hon. member is out of order. He cannot move that, because it is in conflict with the motion submitted by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart).

May I move it in this form, that the cases of Beukes, Lange and De Beer be excluded?

No, the hon. member cannot do that.

I do not want to embarrass the Chairman of this Committee; I do not want to embarrass the Commissioner of Pensions or the Government, but I am definitely not going to embarrass a man who has petitioned Parliament.

Move that it be referred back to the Select Committee.

No, that may take 12 months and the man may be dead and buried by then. The Commissioner of Pensions says: “Under the Pensions Act we cannot deal with this case, but the Government can deal with it.” Well, let the Government consider it then. The Commissioner of Pensions says that he has no medical evidence. He has never seen this man after his operation; in fact, the Pensions Board has written him off as dead. The papers, before he went to Dr. Goldschmidt, went to the Board. The Board said: “No, you had an operation for appendicitis, there was nothing wrong with your kidneys.” But Dr. Goldschmidt found something wrong and he found that his condition had been aggravated by war service. On what medical authority does the Commissioner of Pensions say that there is no medical evidence to support this man’s petition. What medical evidence is there to throw it out? There is a medical officer attached to the department and he recommends whether or not a pension should be awarded. But he doesn’t know this man and he has never seen him. He only knows the disease from which he is suffering. The Chairman of the Select Committee said: “This condition can be aggravated by stooping.” Dr. Goldschmidt, who operated on this man not once, not twice, but four times, has told us that this man’s conditions has been aggravated by his war service, and he stands by that. Well, whom are we going to listen to? To a medical officer attached to the department who has never seen this man, or to man like Dr. Goldschmidt? If Parliament rejects this, then our service men will certainly have a very definite grievance against the Pensions Board. I say that this is a serious case and I hope the Government will agree to have it referred to them so that justice may be done.

The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) obviously feels very strongly about this case. I have no doubt that the Pensions Committee has considered it very carefully. I have no more information about the case than has been submitted here, but as the hon. member for Green Point feels so strongly about it I shall have no objection to its being referred to the Government for consideration if the Chairman of the Select Committee will agree to it. I do not regard that as a reflection on the Committee. The Committee has done its work very well this year, and I am sure it has considered all the aspects of the case, but as my hon. friend who has raised this case considers that there are other aspects which need consideration I shall have no objection to its going to the Government.

I must correct one statement which the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) made in what is almost an attack on the Select Committee and the Commissioner of Pensions—that the latter is guided by the Medical Officer. This case was actually sent to the Medical Appeal Board—I want that on record.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz.—

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to certain resolutions.

Report considered.

I move—

I second.

Some 30 petitions have not yet been dealt with by the Select Committee on Pensions. It means that these petitions have to stand over until next year.

That does not seem to be fair to me. I take it the Commitee has done its duty and worked as hard as possible in the circumstances, but I feel that if a number of petitions is submitted and they cannot be dealt with, then another Commitee should be appointed. The work should be divided. These people hand in their petitions; they wait for months to hear what has happened, and then they are simply told that the Select Committee did not have the time to examine their petitions and they have to wait for another year.

Many of these applications are of an urgent nature, and I think it is not fair. I hold that the Government should appoint two Committees and should divide the work so that they can complete the task when large numbers of petitions are submitted.

The cases which we have not dealt with have not received attention for one reason only, because we have not had the report from the Treasury. We have dealt with every petition which has been reported on by the Treasury.

You must get another department to get these reports.

We have dealt with 181 petitions, and the great majority of these were petitions that were handed in this Session. I think the Treasury has been very expeditious this Session in bringing out these reports, because as you will realise, they need a lot of investigation. Only 30 are standing over; that is a record. Never before in our memory have so few petitions stood over.

All the more reason for having two committees.

I find that the Select Committee—I am a member of that Committee myself—is labouring under certain difficulties. I want particularly to refer to cases which have been rejected by the Committee, mainly because the Committee had no option. Some cases of officials who applied to be transferred to a new pension scheme have already been mentioned here today. Almost without exception these officials all complain that they were not properly informed by the departments in time. It is such an important matter that I feel that the State and the Government should take steps so that these people are properly informed in time, avoiding thereby that these cases have to be referred to a Select Committee on Pensions when it is too late. There are also cases, which are dealt with in the report which is now before us, in connection with which I have felt to my regret that under the existing legislation I had no option but to agree with the decision arrived at by the Select Committee. There is, for instance, the case of a police official in Pretoria, who during the difficult period of the war, when an enormous amount of overtime was required from the police, returned home in the mornings by motor bicycle. He was allowed to do so because it was recognised as part of his work, but when this party returning home, was involved in an accident, they did not recognise that he was killed in the course of his duties, and his relatives Were, therefore, compelled to apply to the Select Committee for a pension. Under the Workmen’s Compensation Act the State insists that a private firm where an employee of theirs is killed on his way home, shall pay compensation, but where the State itselfs is involved in such a case, it simply denies responsibility. Is it right and proper that the State should compel private people in this way, whilst not accepting responsibility itself? We had no option, but it certainly is not just. We have another case before us, which also figures in the report we are dealing with today, where an official who has qualified privately to enable him to be transferred to the Department of Justice, applied to be so transferred. His request was turned down. The official insisted and finally he was forced to resign his position and in that way to switch over to the Department of Justice where he received an appointment. The time required to travel from one position to the other, meant a break in the service of, I believe, one day. We were not in a position, in view of precedents in the past, to condone this break of service. If the system is so bad, the flaw should be rectified. Surely it is not the fault of the official concerned. The official qualified himself in law, or had special talent in that direction, and I feel that it is not just that the State should adopt such an attitude.

Can he hon. member inform me what items he desires to discuss?

The items under paragraph 4.

The items under paragraph 4 do not figure in the report. They have been dealt with in the Committee stage. We are only dealing now with the report as it was submitted by the Committee. The hon. member will have another opportunity of discussing the matter.

I endeavoured to deal with the matter in Committee, but was ruled out of order. I only want to point to some weaknesses in the present system.

I want to support the suggestion that ways and means should be found before next Session to deal with applications more expeditiously. For instance I know of a widow who made application and she will have to wait for a reply for another twelve months. She is really in need of assistance. It is a lady who is suffering under the loss of her son, the breadwinner, who was also the breadwinner of the family. I am referring to the case of Mrs. Boyes, which case will have to stand over with other cases until next year. We will be grateful if means can be devised to deal with applications more expeditiously.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move—

The purpose of this Bill is twofold. In the first place, its object is to give effect to budget proposals for increased expenditure on social pensions. In the second place, we seek to make certain amendments in regard to the law dealing with war pensions. Let me first of all deal with the budget proposals as implemented in this Bill. In the budget speech I foreshadowed various changes in regard to social pensions. Firstly, the raising of the rates of pension for European blind to old age pension rates; secondly the increase of invalidity grants to old age pension rates, and the extension of the invalidity grant to cover non-Europeans; thirdy, the making of Asiatics eligible for the old age and blind pensions; fourthly, the making of natives eligible for old age pensions on the basis of £12 in the cities, £9 in the towns and £7 in the rural areas; fifthly, changing the law in regard to the support of the children as far as old age pensions and blind pensions are concerned; sixthly, an additional allowance of £6 per month for European old age pension and invalidity grants, and of £3 for coloured and Asiatic grants; and finally, a concession in regard to the deduction which is át present made in respect of property. At the present moment the free limit is £400, and I announced we would make that £800. Some of these proposals can be and are being dealt with administratively. For instance, the last one mentioned, in regard to the deduction in respect of property, is purely an administrative matter and will be dealt with administratively. Then the invalidity scheme is still on an administrative basis. Now that we are making it comprehensive the time has come, I think, to put it on a statutory basis; but that will need investigation and examination by the department concerned, the Department of Welfare and Demobilisation; and in the meantime the proposals, so far as the invalidity scheme is concerned, will be dealt with administratively. The other proposals are contained in the earlier clauses of the Bill. The first of them was the raising of the rates for European blind to old age pension rates; that will be done by 6 (a) and 6 (d) of the Bill. Then the next proposal I mentioned affected the invalidity scheme, and it therefore does not fall within the scope of this Bill. The third proposal was to make Asiatics eligible for old age and blind pensions; that has been done by 3 (a) ás far as old age pensions are concerned, and by 6 (b) as far as blind pensions are concerned. Then there was a proposal to make natives eligible for old age pension grants; that is done by paragraphs 3 (b) and (c). At the same time where natives today are getting blind pensions on a non-statutory basis, we are placing them on a statutory basis in 6 (c) ánd 6 (e) of this Bill. As far as natives are concerned, I think I should draw attention to Section 46 (4) of the Bill. As I indicated in the budget speech, speaking generally these proposals, I said, could not be made effective before the 1st September. As far as all the other proposals áre concerned, I think we shall be able to make them effective as from the 1st September. It will not, however, be possible to do it as far as natives are concerned, because of the magnitude of the task that is involved. What is proposed is to make natives in the cities eligible from the 1st September, and natives in other areas outside the reserves eligible for old age pensions from the 1st January. It is contemplated, further, that subject to the provision of funds by Parliament, provision will be made for other natives in the reserves from the 1st April next. Then as far as the proposal to change the law in so far as the support of children is concerned, that is dealt with by 3 (e) for old age pensions and 6 (g) for blind pensions. The other provisions, as I have already indicated, can be dealt with administratively. To that extent, then, this Bill is giving effect to the proposals which I outlined in the Budget. In that connection, however, I think I should refer to one other matter which arises out of a comment made during the Budget debate. I refer here to Section 9. As hon. members are aware, European old age pensioners are to get an extra £6 allowance, and coloured old age pensioners an extra £3. Now the war veteran pensioner gets today the basic rate of old age pension plus one-third; that is apart from the cost of living allowance. In most cases the war veteran pensioner is better off than the old age pensioner. It was, however, pointed out that in the case of a war veteran pensioner drawing the extra £6 or £12 allowance, the one-third supplement which he gets today will be less than the increase of £6 which the old age pensioner gets. We propose in Section 9 to lay it down that no war veteran pensioner will get less than he would have got as an old age pensioner. I may say that Section 9 in the Bill has been re-drafted as compared with the old Bill, because in the old Bill there was room for misunderstanding as to what the effect would be, but it has now been made perfectly clear. I now come to the second part of the Bill, which deals with war pensions. I would remind the House of the statement I made in this connection about a month ago. I then indicated that we were contemplating three things in regard to war pensions: First of all, the reconstitution of the Military Pensions Appeal Board; secondly, the appointment of an independent committee of enquiry into the administration and interpretation of the pension laws. Both of these matters are still receiving attention. I am afraid I have not been able, owing to pressure of work during the Session, to bring them to finality, but I shall deal with them as soon as possible after the Session is over. The committee, of course, will be empowered to take evidence in regard to matters within the scope of its reference. Its terms of reference have, however, not yet been compiled. I indicated to the soldiers’ organisations that I would welcome their suggestions in that connection, and the whole thing would then be considered in the light of what they submitted. I hope that the appointment will take place soon after the recess commences. Those are the first two point I mentioned in that statement. In the third place I said, that pending such enquiry as was foreshadowed by me, I proposed that the law should be amended in certain respects. I also said that I had had the benefit of consultation with the British Empire Service League and that that organisation has expressed its approval of the proposals which it was intended to submit. I also indicated that I had taken account of the views submitted by other organisations. Subsequently, after the Bill had been drafted, I had the opportunity of a discussion with representatives of the B.E.S.L. and the M.O.T.H.S. and to a large extent the further points raised by them, which were really points of detail, have been met in the re-draft of the Bill as now submitted. Now, Sir, let me deal generally with this question of war pensions. In 1942 we passed a War Pensions Law. It was a comprehensive measure covering the whole ground. It marked a considerable advance over its predecessor, and judged by the standard of comparison with the pension laws of other countries, our Act of 1942 is definitely a good Act. We improved it last year in certain respects, relatively minor respects, by an Amending Bill, but, of course, Sir, even though that Act was a good one, even though it has been improved since it was passed, I do not regard it as a perfect law, I do not regard it as a law which does not admit of further improvement, and in this Bill, pending, as I have said, the results of that examination, I do think we have an, improvement on the present law. Now the most important change proposed in this Bill is in connection with the alternative award, and it is that change which is responsible for a very large part of the Bill. That is so because the alternative award enters into the whole structure of the present law, and the change that we are making in regard to the alternative award, involves changes in respect of several clauses in the existing Act. The main change which we make is to be found in Section 22 of this Bill, which amends Section 13 of the existing law. There are a very large number of consequential amendments to other clauses of the Act which are dealt with in other clauses of the Bill. I do not intend to refer to them here now; they are, of course, mentioned in the White Paper in which the provisions of the Bill, as originally introduced, are summarised. But let me explain the points principally involved in regard to this matter. Our war pension system has hitherto been based on the twofold provision of a pension according to the schedules, and an alternative award based on the difference between pre-war earnings and present earning capacity. Now that system was a good one, indeed it was an excellent one up to a point; that system has certainly made it possible in many cases to provide much more generous treatment than was possible merely if we had a scheduled basis, as is the case in most other countries. But in the application of that system of the alternative award serious difficulties have arisen, and that more especially in connection with the definition of pre-war earnings. The system has worked quite well in the case of a man who had an established position before he enlisted, but the difficulties arise in regard to the man who had no such established position, who had either no pre-war earnings at all, or only small pre-war earnings which in the normal course of events would have increased if he had not enlisted. Attempts were made in our law to get over that difficulty in certain classes of cases by taking a figure for the pre-war earnings different from the actual figure. We have, however, never found a way of covering all cases which it was felt should be covered. The result was that there were produced several cases of hardship in respect of so-called young volunteers, especially those who were severely disabled. That indicates the difficulty which we want to meet here. The alternative award system is a good system, but there are gaps in it. What we want to do here is, in fact, to retain the essence of the alternative award system but to improve the method, and it is here that I Would refer to Section 22, which is the section which has received the most careful consideration and the most careful discussion with the interested parties of all the sections of this Bill. This Section 22 will substitute for the alternative award a system of supplementary allowances. Where a soldier’s disablement prevents him from resuming his pre-enlistment occupation, or prevents him from following any employment, or is such that his earning capacity is substantially reduced, then we lay it down that he may receive a supplementary allowance which will bring his pension and allowances at scheduled rates up to a maximum of £450 per annum, the attendant allowance being unaffected. If he is unable to follow any employment then his minimum supplementary allowance will be 60 per cent. of the disablement pension, that is £120 over and above what he gets on the basis of the schedule; If his pre-war earnings were less than £450 per annum then his supplementary allowance would be such as to bring the total amount payable to him up to £450. If his disablement is 80 per cent. or more, then any post-discharge earnings, up to £50, will not be taken into account in determining his supplementary allowance. In other words, he may get that over and above what he otherwise would have got. That will encourage him if it is at all possible, to earn something. Now, Sir, these are important proposals that have been very carefully examined by soldiers’ organisations and I think I should say they have met with approval; they mean the retention of all that is good in the alternative award system, but they will also enable us substantially to meet the difficulties which have been experienced in the application of that system. The alternative award system under the present law also applied to widows, and we propose to deal with that in this present Bill in a similar manner. Here the substantive clause is Clause 34, which introduces a new 6 bis into Clause 35. There are other clauses in this Bill which are consequential to that. This new 6 bis of Section 35 of the present Act will make provision for the payment of supplementary allowances, in addition to the statutory widows’ pension, of an amount not exceeding £180 per annum, according to the circumstances of the case.

Is that applicable to non-Europeans?

Yes, just as it is today. There is nothing new in it as far as that is concerned. The means test however will not be applied, just as it is not applied today, in regard to the alternative award as far as widows are concerned. I pass on now to other changes contemplated in this Bill.

[Inaudible.]

In the first place I would refer to the difficulties which have arisen in regard to Clause 5 of the present Act. Under that clause as it now stands, when a volunteer who went up North classified A-1, or B-1, incurred a disability from his service outside the Union, such disability is regarded as attributable to such service. Now, when that clause was framed in 1942, it was understood that the system of medical classification had been consistently carried out by the Defence authorities. Various difficulties have however, arisen, especially with those who went up North in a fighting capacity with an A-1 classification, before the medical categories were fully applied, and who were merely classified “fit.” We therefore have in Section 14 redrafted Section 5 of the existing law, extending it so as to apply to all in the “A” category who went up North, and not merely A-1, and all in the “B” category who served in a fighting capacity, or who were, though not actually fighting, people who saw service in the front line. We make provision for them in the re-draft of the Bill, and to all who were classified fit who served nine months outside the Union and who similarly served in the front line. There is a similar difficulty which has been experienced as far as widows are concerned. Under Section 17 of the existing Act the widow of a volunteer who died outside the Union, from whatever cause, is entitled to a pension. Cases, however, have arisen, they have been mentioned in this House, in which a man has contracted a disease up North not attributable to service, and he was sent back to the Union and died here. His widow is not entitled to a pension under the law today, though she would have been if he had remained up North and died there.

Why?

Because of the terms of the law. We now propose, in Section 24, to meet this and similar difficulties. The effect would be that the widow of a man, dying from disablement falling within the terms of Section 5 (2), which I explained a few minutes ago, will be entitled to a pension wherever death takes place.

What about past cases?

Past cases can be reviewed. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the position of the child, widow and wife. In the amendment which we made last year the definition of a wife was extended to cover those whose marriage took place within five years of discharge, and the definition of widow and child was similarly extended. We now propose that in the case of the volunteer disabled 80 per cent. or more, that the period be extended from five years to eight years. A more important proposal in this connection deals with the position of the child, wife or widow in relation to those who served in previous wars. Last year’s provision was limited to the present war. We have given considerable thought to the possibility of extending it also to those who served in previous wars. There were great difficulties in the way of doing it from an administrative point of view, and these were fully discussed with representatives of soldiers’ organisations, and ultimately it was decided to deal with these cases through the Special Pensions Board. Hence we have in Section 36 a new 6 ter added to the existing Section 35. That empowers the Board to grant relief in such cases to any person who would have been entitled to relief under the 1919 Act, if the provisions in the present law for the present war had been inserted in the 1919 Act. Perhaps I might mention that in the first draft of this Bill there was in this sub-section 6 (ter) a limiting proviso which has been withdrawn as a result of views put to me by soldiers’ organisations. Then we also propose to increase the allowance in respect of a wife and a child. Under the present law the allowance in respect of 100 per cent. is £30 for the wife and £3 for the child per annum and the same rate applies in the case of the child of a widow. We propose to increase that to £36 for Europeans and we propose to make comparable increases in the case of non-Europeans. There are various other minor clauses in the Bill which are explained in the White Paper. Perhaps I should refer to Clause 18. Under the present law the unmarried volunteer may only get an allowance for a dependent parent or brother or sister if he is 80 per cent. disabled. We now propose to apply it irrespective of the degree of disablement, and that, in terms of the redrafted Bill will also apply as far as women volunteers are concerned. In the course of my remarks I have indicated where the redrafted Bill differs from the original Bill, but in addition, the redrafted Bill contains two new clauses. The one clause, Clause 35, provides for the allocation of liability as between the Miners’ Phthisis Fund and the War Pensions Fund, but it doesn’t make any change as far as the rights of the party concerned are concerned, but it is merely a matter of adjustment between the two funds. In Section 44 we laid down that in the case of a member of a crew of a merchant ship registered in the Union the provisions of the War Pensions Act will apply. The question of other merchant ships, and indeed of service in other forces than of the Union itself, is one of considerable difficulty and is still receiving consideration. In the meantime provision is being made, though less generous than in our case, in those other countries. This matter will receive further consideration when we are in a better position to deal with it as a whole. Those then are the things which this Bill sets out to achieve. As I have indicated we set forth a three-barrelled programme. First, the reconstitution of the Appeal Board, secondly the appointment of a Committee to investigate the administrative machinery and in the third place the appointment of committees to report on the amendment of the law so as to improve it in various respects. I think that what we are setting forth in this Bill does represent a substantial improvement as far as the War Pensions Law is concerned and at the same time in the first part of the Bill we have embodied proposals which also mark a substantial advance as far as concerns our programme for social progress.

I want to discuss certain matters falling under this Bill and other speakers will deal with other aspects of the Bill. Before coming to the Bill itself, I want to ask the Minister as Acting Prime Minister, whether the Government would not be prepared to undertake in future, when introducing amending legislation, not only to publish a white paper but also to supply hon. members with a copy of the proposed Act as it will be after being amended. Here the Minister comes with an amending Bill and for hon. members to get a conception of the Bill, they have to have before them three or four other Acts, and then they have to fit in pieces here and there in order to be able to understand what it is all about, and often they have to write out amendments before they can understand what it means. I do not think it is an unreasonable request, because it is done for the Minister himself by the department. His officials have before them a complete concept of how the Act is going to read after having been passed. The Minister gets a copy of that.

Not necessarily.

Oh, yes. The Minister gets that where there is any substantial amendment, otherwise it is impossible to understand the Act. Now I say that where the Minister requires that for himself, he can well understand how essential it is for hon. members on this side and on the other side who do not have the department at their disposal in the same way as the Minister has. It is a courteous request to the Minister to do that in the interests of the smooth working of this House. The position now is that not only lawyers often do not know where they stand, but he can visualise how the ordinary layman has to struggle in order to make head or tail out of amending legislation coming before the House. I hope the Minister will consider this request and at the next Session of Parliament—in any case as far as important legislation is concerned—accede to this request. As far as the Bill itself is concerned, there are certain alterations which we welcome; although some of us may think that it does not go far enough, there are certain proposals which are welcomed by all of us, as for example the alteration in respect of old age pension, the demands on children, that children, when in a position to do so, should care for an old mother or father, and if such children are in a position to provide for their parents, they do not get an old age pension. We have advocated this alteration for years, not only On this side of the House but also on the other side, and at last the Government has given way and recognised the reasonableness of our request. Then there is the increase in the allowance to old age pensioners. It is not very much, only £6 per year, or 10s. per month. It is of some assistance to the old age pensioners, and we welcome that increase. Then there is another improvement, namely in respect of the value of fixed property, the amount now being increased from £400 to £800. That is also welcomed by us. Other speakers intend to enlarge upon that. I only want to say that we regret that whilst the Minister has made this alteration in respect of fixed property, he has not applied the same principle to the income of a person. What I want to oppose in this Bill, is the granting of old age pensions to natives and Indians. I have already done so when the Minister introduced his estimates. I want to lodge a further protest today under existing circumstances. The Minister estimates that during the current year old age pensions will have to be paid to 67,000 natives, involving an amount of £323,000 from 1st September. For a full year, on that basis, it will mean £553,710, or an average of £8 5s. per native. Probably there are quite a number of people who do not strongly favour old age pensions to natives, but who console themselves with the thought that only £500,000 is involved and that it is not going to be a very heavy burden on the European taxpayer. I have made a rough calculation during the Budget debate, and I want once more to submit my figures to the House, namely that from next year or the year after that, pensions will also be granted to natives in reserves. When that happens, or even as soon as the natives in the urban areas and in the rural areas realise what they can get, I prophesy that the number of natives applying for old age pensions, will increase enormously and that the amount will increase to such an extent that it will throw a very heavy burden on the European taxpayer. I base my calculation on two factors. At the present moment, that is to say up to last year, old age pension was paid to 27,000 coloureds out of a coloured population of 800,000. If one takes into consideration that the native population in view of their primitive mode of living, probably has a smaller average income than the coloureds, and if you take the 7,000,000 natives we have in the Union, it is a fair assumption that as soon as the pension scheme is applied in all its aspects, at least 236,000 natives will become entitled to old age pensions. I am taking as my basis for calculation the amount of coloureds enjoying old age pensions. But taking another basis of calculation, the 1936 census, we get the following result. According to that census—of course the population has increased since then—there were 234,574 native males over the age of 65, and applying the means test, and realising how the Government views this matter, I have no doubt whatsoever that old age pension will be given to all these natives. That gives us 234,574 natives. In addition you get some 80,000 native women over the age of 60. The women get old age pension from the age of 60. That gives one a total of 313,000 native men and women as far as the age qualification is concerned, who according to the latest census in 1936 are eligible for and probably will receive old age pension. If you take into consideration that in 1945 or 1946 or in 1947, when this scheme will be in full operation, the native population will be considerably larger than it was in 1936, one could easily suppose that at least 350,000 natives will be eligible for old age pension. Take a round figure of only 300,000. At an average of £8 per native, it gives you an amount of approximately £2,500,000 per year to be paid in native pensions. Now I want to put a question to the Minister. We are not only going to enjoy this position of apparent prosperity of today, which is the result of war conditions. Now I ask what European will be prepared to shoulder this heavy burden. It will be a burden on the European. The native himself, by reason of the fact that he possibly pays a small amount of indirect taxation, contributes, but apart from his small amount of indirect taxation paid by the native, we know that the native taxation goes to the Native Trust Fund and not to the Treasury. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the native is not going to contribute a brass farthing to this enormous amount which ultimately will go in native pensions. We as a party here, are not prepared to put the burden on the Europeans, because we think that it is unnecessary. Now I hope that hon. members on the other side will not be very ticklish about their conscience and say that it is a matter of conscience, and that the natives are suffering from such bad and poor conditions that the European’s conscience forces him to give old age pensions to the natives. In that case I would like to put just one question: was the conscience asleep all these years? The argument makes not the slightest impression on me. I wish to take the native in his primitive state in South Africa, and to point out the fact that his standard of living is so low, and his need so small that actually there is no great necessity for a pension, provided the native is prepared to work. The natives in general, as a result of the uncivilised conditions under which they live, have not the slightest conception of making provision for the future. The native only works—and I am speaking from experience, because every day of my life I come in contact with natives in my undertakings—the native only works if distress and hunger drive him to it. The year his maize crop is from 40 to 50 bags, he does not work before it has been depleted.

If he had reaped five bags, he only works one or two days of the week.

The hon. member goes even further. As long as the native has sufficient food to live on, he refuses to work. I farm and I know what the position is. If he has had a crop, you can offer him £3 or £4 per month, but he will refuse to work as long as he has sufficient food. The native has no sense of saving or making provision for the future, and if we are still going to take millions of pounds from the European Treasury to give pensions to natives and the Lord knows family allowance in addition and all the other things which may follow later, then I don’t know where we are going to land. Then the labour position will become more serious than it is already. The idea that if you pay a higher wage, the native will work, is an idea which can only be cherished by people who have not the slightest knowledge of natives. It is nonsense. The daily experience of every farmer on the platteland contradicts that. For these reasons, we are opposed to the suggested plan to grant old age pensions to natives on a large scale. We say that it is unnecessary and that you are only going to encourage the native in his evil of not wanting to work. It may be said that this will only apply to aged natives. One must teach the native to care for the future. If you are going to dish out pensions, the native will never learn to provide for the future. But I go further and I come to the natives on the farms and in the reserves. There are thousands of natives who, on reaching the age of 60, are still capable of doing light work on the farms. They are doing so today. If the need forces them to do so, if hunger compels them, they do these odd jobs. If you are going to grant him a pension, he will not do a stroke of work. You are strengthening the native in his bad ways, unnecessarily. If it is contended that I want to see a position under which aged and sickly natives starve, I definitely deny that. Take the native on the farm. On the farm the native will never starve. Those who want to work, will always be able to get odd jobs and if the native is so aged and infirm that he can no longer look after himself, the farmer will always make provision for him, much better provision than the members of his own tribe. What is more, under the present system the State has always rendered assistance where there were really necessitous cases amongst aged natives, but on other lines, and we hold that the State should in future continue to assist those natives on the old basis. Now I want to come to another difficult, and that is the difficulty to differentiate between the man who is a native and the one who is not. If the Minister is going to introduce old age pensions for natives, that difficulty will arise. I take for instance the definition as contained in Clause 4. It reads as follows—

1. (a) a member of an aboriginal race or tribe of Africa; or
2. (b) a Hottentot, Bushman or Koranna; or
3. (c) a person who is residing in a native location as defined in section nineteen of the Natives Taxation and Development Act, 1925 (Act No. 41 of 1925), under the same conditions as a native; or
4. (d) an American negro, but does not include a member of the race or class commonly called Griquas”.

An American negro?

For the purposes of this Bill, an American negro is not regarded as a coloured or a European, but as a native. Now I want to ask the Minister who is going to determine when a person is a native and a member of an aboriginal race or tribe of Africa. I want to quote a few examples. Here in the Western Province there has been a large influx of thousands of natives recently. Among the coloured population today you find persons who are pitch black and who for all practical purposes look like natives, but they may have been here for generations and are regarded here in a coloured environment as coloured. I have noticed numerous cases in the Western Province. If you put that same person in the Transkei or the Transvaal, you will regard him as a native, but like the coloured here, he speaks Afrikaans or English and is considered to be a coloured man. There is a further question I want to put. Thousands of natives have migrated here and mixed breeding has taken place : native women marry coloured men or vice versa, the coloured boy marries a native girl. What is the child from that marriage according to the definition? I guarantee that if the child grows up here in the Western Province, in the Cape, in a coloured environment, then the child will be regarded here as a coloured. This defintion will simply land us in all kinds of trouble. Let me give a further example. The Bill contains no definition of Indians, as far as I can see. Now pensions will be granted to Indians, but there is no definition of an Indian. In numerous places the Indians are living amongst the natives. They have their shops there and mixed breeding on a big scale takes place. The mixed child of an Indian and a native, what is he? A coloured or a native in terms of the Act, or what? What pension does he get? Let me just refer to the definition of native in the legislation of 1936. There an attempt was made to see to it that the children of native parents, whether they were mixed with coloured or with Europeans or whatever race, will be natives. Take the position which exists in these coastal towns, where sailors of all nationalities come, from Durban and all over. There has been an influx of thousand of natives here, and you have a fair mixture already between European sailors of all nationalities and the natives. The sailors do not differentiate between race or colour. Here you find a new mass community, descendants of sailors and natives. According to the definition of the Minister, I take it they are all coloureds and will eventually be entitled to a coloured pension. I mention this to make clear the extent of the undertaking, the tremendous amount which is involved. I point out the difficulties. You find different definitions of natives in this Bill and in the native legislation of 1936 and in the Native Trust Act. In Act No. 18 of 1936, you find the following definition of “native”—

1. (a) Any member of any aboriginal race or tribe of Africa, other than a race, tribe or ethnic group in the Union representing the remnants of a race or tribe of South Africa which has ceased to exist as a race or tribe; and
2. (b) any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph
   1. (a) ; and
   2. (c) any person whose father or mother is or was a native in terms of paragraph (b),

in term of all the different clauses which I have already read out. What this definition amounts to is this, that a descendant of a native, whether he’ is a product of a European or a coloured with a native, or a half-caste or an Indian or whatever it may be, is a native. According to the definition of the Minister, I do not accept that the half-caste will be regarded as a native. If a native here intermarries a coloured and he has children, and they grow up amongst the coloureds here, then he will not be regarded as a native according to the definition of the Minister in this Bill. He is no longer a member of a native race. He is just as much entitled to say that he is a member of the European race or the coloureds if one parent is a native and the other is a coloured or a European. The position can be remedied to a great extent if the Minister substitutes the definition with the one contained in the 1936 legislation. I want to ask the Minister why there are all these different definitions of natives, why the definitions in the various Acts are different. Both the Acts deal with natives, and there is a world wide difference between the definitions. What is the idea? One will eventually not know where you are in the country. You have different definitions in the different Acts. We have already had verdicts in the court which quoted different definitions of natives. In any case the Minister ought to make his definition of “native” much clearer than it is in the Bill, in order that there shall be no confusion, or as little confusion as possible. The Minister must make it clear that the descendant of a native who has intermarried with another race, will also be regarded as a native. We are increasing the pensions of the coloureds, and if you allow that, all the descendants of the natives e.g. here in the Western Province are accepted as coloureds, then the burden on the European taxpayer will become even more unbearable. All this shows very clearly how necessary it is, in view of the different races we have in South Africa, and in view of the difficulty one experiences when one must differentiate between a European and a coloured and a native, that the time has arrived, apart from legislation to differentiate between the various races, to pass legislation in terms of which we will have a general national register of the residents of South Africa, so that it will be possible to issue each person with an identification certificate, from which it will be apparent whether he is a European or a coloured or a native. Once we have done that, so that we will also be able to determine whether a descendant is a coloured or a native or whatever it may be, only then, in view of all the races which are found here, will one find anything like a clear position here. As long as you have not got that, you will have all kinds of difficulties to contend with. As I have already said, I do not want to talk about the other aspects of the Bill now, because there are other hon. members who will do that. But hereby I wish to register my protest against this burden which will be placed on the European people of South Africa in order to pay pensions to great numbers of coloureds, Indians and natives.

Mr. Speaker, the provisions on the Bill as explained to us by the Minister of Finance have for their object the improvement of the lot of the ex-volunteer and his dependants who have become pensionable under the War Pensions Act. During the debate on the administration of that Act in April last, there was a fairly wide discussion of complaints which are common amongst ex-volunteers and their dependants, and there is a widespread feeling that those complaints should be investigated. I am glad the Minister intends to appoint a committee to carry out that investigation, because until those complaints have been fully investigated this House will not be in a position to deal adequately with the amendments that are needed in the War Pensions Act, and which may be shown to be imperative as a result of the enquiry. In the meantime, Sir, the efforts of the Minister to remove known difficulties will be welcomed in this House and by the public outside. Now, Sir, on the scope of the present amendments I think we are entitled to say there is still a long way to go. I should like to quote an opinion received by me today from one who is a prominent man on the Witwatersrand and who, in a civil capacity, meets with a large number of people affected by the War Pensions Act. He says of the present Bill—

That, Sir, I think is very true. The demobilisation scheme, in its way, is a very effective attempt to rehabilitate the ex-soldier and reinstate him in the various industries of the country from which he withdrew to engage in active service at the front. It is an attempt to repair the loss of employment, the loss of pay, and the loss of promotion inseparable from the self-sacrificing devotion to duty of those who went to the front. I hope that the Minister’s proposal to appoint a committee to investigate pension matters will serve the great purpose of ascertaining the magnitude of the suffering, the disablement, the loss of life that our people have been called upon to bear, and to make recommendations which will prove effectual to repair the injury that has been done to the community. I believe that the Minister’s proposal is the best that has been made so far and I only hope that the committee which he intends to appoint will be easily accessible in every part of the Union, and that the personnel will be such as to command the confidence of those who are affected, and so bring to the notice of the committee the very people we wish to help. A number of matters have been dealt with in the Bill in a very conscientious manner; they aim at considerable improvement in the administration of the War Pensions Acts and we can have nothing but praise for what is sought to be done by the Minister. There is one point as to which I have some difficulty, and that is the substitution of the term “alternative award” by the term “supplementary allowance.” I am not demurring to the effect of the Minister’s proposals, I am only regretting that we cannot hit upon a more satisfactory phraseology to replace “alternative award.” The award has always been regarded by the soldier and by his widow as something of a right, while supplementary allowance may easily be thought to be not part of a permanent pension, and I wish the Minister could think of some phraseology that would improve upon that term, because we want the ex-soldier and his dependants to feel confidence in whatever award is made. I feel that the Minister, with his mastery of the magic of the necessary word, might think of a term more suitable, something which means a portion of a permanent award and has as good a face value as the alternative award has had in the years that are past. Then, in regard to the reorganisation of the Appeal Board, I don’t want to appear discouraging, but I think the Appeal Board is not a very big feature in the administration of the War Pensions Act. It is not as though a very large proportion of people are able to go to the Appeal Board. The difficulty of going to Pretoria is one which few of the pensioners are able to overcome. It is true that the B.E.S.L. renders a splendid service to those who wish to prosecute appeals, and in some cases they are represented by officials of the League before the Appeal Board without the necessity of attending in person. But there is always a feeling of reluctance on the part of persons affected to prosecute an appeal because unless they can go there and state their case, and bring some sort of personal evidence to bear upon the Board. For that reason I feel that improvement of the Military Pensions Board would be more acceptable, really, than a re-organisation of the Appeal Board. Then, Sir, if we regard the main object of the War Pensions Act as that of repairing the permanent damage occasioned to our population through the losses they have suffered, I think we must not be content to leave any war widow or soldier’s dependant pensionless. Nor must we think it sufficient that they have had a gratuity from the Special Pensions Board, or may have been the recipients of some small annuity. I feel that there is a great volume of people whose sufferings have not been accorded the same consideration as those who are dependants of men who have died outside the bounds of the Union. I shall never be satisfied, as long as I remain a member of this House, with the position that at present exists, in which widows are able to say that their husbands died in the war and they and their children have received no compensation or next to nothing. I say that that position ought to be remedied, and that is part of the work of the Committee that the Minister has wisely decided to appoint. It is surely disquieting to hear that 885 death claims have been rejected. The thought naturally occurs to one that they were not treated on the same footing as the widows of those who served outside the Union. I know of cases of people, dependants of soldiers who died inside the Union, who have received nothing at all—though their husbands had signed the oath to serve anywhere. Then I am satisfied that a very large number of those parents who receive a total pension of £13 a year should have received the full maximum allowed to a parent. I know that such people have sometimes been dealt with by the Board on the assumption that they were not dependent upon the man who was killed and I think that is very often incorrect. I think that the investigation which we are hopeful that the Minister will carry out through his committee will prove that that is so, and we must face up to the situation and endeavour to grant the relief that is fair and just. There are other cases in which death has occurred and no grant whatever has been made to the people who have suffered. I have a case here—I have mentioned it before —of a woman serving as a typiste, I believe, but being on the strength as a soldier, who was shot on an aerodrome in Durban. Now the person who was responsible for her death was tried for culpable homicide. The indignation of the community was very great, but to this date no award of any kind has been made to her son, and now it is held that he has attained the age when he is not eligible for an award. Nor was there, at the time, any provision for the case of the husband being submitted to the B.E.S.L.

Was he in the army?

Yes, he was in the army, and I suppose being on the establishment and earning a certain amount he was considered as not being dependent on his wife. But if at the same time we regard the ravages and the casualties of war on the grand scale these cases should be considered, and the cumulative effect of dealing with these cases on a somewhat more generous basis will be to give more general satisfaction to the whole community. I hope that in regard to cases of parents and widows of volunteers who lose their lives within the borders of the Union, the whole position will be reconsidered and treated on a different basis than is permissible under the Bill in its present form. I look forward to the time when we shall be able to relax the terms of the present Act and have less to say about death and casualties not being attributable to military service. When you come to realise it, among the rejected cases there was so large a proportion in 1942-’44 of cases that were regarded as not due to military service—613 out of 623—and up to January, 1942, the main ground of the rejection of 615 claims was that the disability was neither due to nor aggravated by military service. I hope that this phraseology will be dropped before we have done with the Pensions Act. I think we should realise that a widow is a widow whether her husband died in the Union or elsewhere, and she suffers the loss of her breadwinner or guardian whether her husband has been killed inside the Union or outside the Union, and that her difficulties to make ends meet are just as great as the difficulties of the woman whose husband died in the front line up North. I hope that as a result of the Committee of Enquiry which is to be held, we shall obtain a great deal of information on these subjects which will be very helpful. Let me recall a very true remark made by a public speaker in Johannesburg not long ago in regard to the attitude of the public towards the cases of death of volunteers. He said—

Let them not be betrayed, Sir.

The improvements which are being brought about by the hon. Minister in our Pensions Act will in any case be welcomed with open arms. On the one hand we are in this position that every year when taxes are levied, we ask the Minister to reduce those taxes; and in the same year when we ask for pensions, the position is reversed and we ask the Minister to make it a little more. It is very unfortunate that that is so, because there is no doubt that if it were not for that fact, pensions would be granted on a much more liberal scale than is the case today. Let us be grateful for the improvements in this Bill. Many cases have already been mentioned, to which the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has referred, but may I just say this in passing. I think it behoves us to express our apprecia tion to the hon. Minister for devoting his personal attention to the hundred and one matters which we referred to him from time to time. I think every member in this House and everyone in the country can testify to the fact that the Minister always gives his full attention to these matters, and we appreciate it very much. We find no fault with the Minister in his personal capacity in the administration of this law. We want to give him every credit for the manner in which he administers these laws. But now we have to deal with the hard facts with which the Minister is faced, and with which we are also faced, namely, that portion of the casualties in the army which are still excluded. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) was good enough to repeat the figure in regard to the number of casualties within the Union which do not carry a pension. I think he stated that there were 885 cases. That is not to our credit. Unfortunately we hold the view—up to the present it has always triumphed—that the man who lost his life in the Union while he was in the army but not actually on military service at the time of his death, is not considered, or rather his dependants are not considered under the Pensions Act. It is a pity that that is the case. I want to associate myself with the plea of the hon. member for Pinetown that we hope that the words “attributable to military service” will for all time disappear from the Statute Book and from the correspondence. What is actually the position? Let me draw the attention of the House and more particularly of the hon. Minister to the fact that it is physically impossible for any person—or rather for his dependants, because the man is dead—to prove that the disease from which he suffered and of which he died, was contracted while he was on parade, while he was doing reconnaissance work at the coast; while he had poor food for a matter of four months and perhaps had to go without food for a few days at a time. During his whole life he was accustomed to good food. He is employed on reconnaissance work and for a whole week perhaps he has to lie on a cold rock, night and day. He contracts all sorts of ailments. A year later he dies as a result of those diseases. How can we expect his dependants to prove that in actual fact his death was due to military service? I hope hon. members will agree with me that it is impossible. I am only taking one case as an example. It is impossible, and because it is impossible to prove it, the onus is placed on the dependants of proving it. How can one prove it? I say again that it is impossible for the best advocate in the world to do so. How could a doctor certify that? The man may have been A1, but he died two years after leaving the service or perhaps six months after his discharge from the service. How can one place the responsibility on the doctor of certifying that this man died as a result of diseases contracted while on military service? It is impossible. I say therefore that in order to avoid harsh treatment of certain dependants, let us rather expose ourselves to the danger of granting a pension here and there which may not be due to the people, where at the present time we are exposed to the danger of withholding pensions from people to whom they are due. Let us rather acquit guilty people than sentence innocent people to death, if I may put it that way; I should therefore like the Minister to appreciate these difficulties. I say there is only one way of avoiding that, and that is to lay down the rule—and I think all the soldiers’ organisations will agree with me on that point—that if a man who rendered military service dies while he is in uniform, we should accept the responsibility and give his dependants a pension. I readily admit that there will be cases where we may grant pensions to certain people to whom we would not have granted it if we had been omnipotent. But the great majority of cases are those where we withhold pensions from people who, in my opinion, are entitled to pensions. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot lay down that principle in the Committee stage. I dealt with various cases to which the Minister personally gave his full attention. He took the trouble of considering these cases under the Act. One was the case of a person who was drowned in Durban, a young A-1 man who was on the point of leaving. His wife and children are not in receipt of a pension. If this man had not entered military service, he would not have found himself in Durban. It is said that he went for a swim. That is true, but if he had not enlisted, he would not have been in Durban but in the mines. Another case to which the Minister also gave his personal attention was that of Muller, a Bloemfontein man. He was off duty and with the permission of his officer, he was going to play tennis for his unit. He went to the bus and when he offered his fare, the bus driver told him that he did not have sufficient change and that he should run to the cafe to change the money. When he crossed the road, a motor car ran over him and killed him. His wife is not getting a pension; and perhaps I should tell the Minister in passing that a special allowance was not even granted in that case. But if this man had not entered military service he would not have been run over by a motor car; he would have remained on his farm in Hoopstad. I could mention other cases, but I do not want to trouble the House with them. In the majority of cases the fact that they enlisted and were in uniform was the reason for their being at a certain place where they met with their death. If we really want to avoid this injustice in many cases, we should give everyone of these people a pension. We can expect more prosperity and blessings if we give a small number of pensions to people who are not entitled to it rather than withholding a large number of pensions from people to whom it is actually due. That is my philosophy and religion, and I think the majority of hon. members in this House will agree with me. I know that the only difficulty which stands in our way is the question of £.s.d., but the number is not so large that South Africa should commit an injustice for the sake of the extra costs which will be involved. I urge this very strongly because I know that that is the general feeling. By doing so we would rectify many cases of injustice in our country. I am convinced that practically the whole House will agree with me. This principle goes even further and has an even more detrimental effect. The difficulty in a number of cases is to prove that soldiers who were in uniform and who returned to the Union, died after years of service as a result of bodily injury which they suffered overseas, or as a result of a disability which they suffered in some part of the world or other in the service of the Union. Frequently the bodily injury is aggravated by the strenuous military duty which they perform when they return to the Union. After a matter of six months the sufferer may die, and it is impossible for the wife and children to prove that in the first instance the man’s death was attributable to the military service which he rendered. I want to urge the Minister very strongly to lay down that principle. He would then be doing something for which we would all be grateful, and it would remove an injustice which has existed in the past. I also want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider a few other amendments to base the scale of allowances, of pensions, for wives and children on the percentage disability of the breadwinner. If the breadwinner is still alive and is certified to be 70 per cent. disabled, I should like the wife to get 70 per cent. of the £132, which is not the case at present.

The widow gets £132.

Yes, but the husband is 70 per cent. disabled and can no longer work. Then I should like the Minister to consider the question of amending the provision in such a way that the wife and children will get 70 per cent. of the allowance which they would have got if the husband had died. If we do not do so, we shall be departing from a very important principle and a recognised principle which was laid down in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I should like the Military Pensions Act to be placed on the same basis so that the same scale of allowances will apply to dependants as is laid down in the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I think what I am asking here is very reasonable. I think the people are entitled to it. I also want to associate myself with the plea which was made in connection with the Military Pensions Board. I do not want to cast any reflection on any member of the Military Pensions Board. I do not know one of them, but I have never heard anyone who had anything to do with the Board, speak favourably of it. There must be something wrong, and I think the case which was raised in another debate by the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) amply proves that. He mentioned a case where the Military Pensions Board came to a conclusion which was diametrically opposed to the opinion of the expert who had successfully operated on the man. If ever a case was made out to prove that the Military Pensions Board should act on different lines, it was proved by this case. I have spoken to many people who have appeared before the Appeal Board, and I have never heard anyone speak favourably of the Board. Then I also want to recommend to the Minister that he should recognise the Oudstryders in this Bill. In doing so I want to say at once that the present Minister is the first Minister who has done anything for them up to the present, but here is a golden opportunity to do a little more for the Oudstryders. Let the Oudstryders who have reached the age of 65 years, receive the full pension and not merely an ante-dated old age pension; let it be on the basis of the military pension. The difference will be this: As long as the ante-dated old age pension is granted, the means test is applied, and as soon as the man earns anything, it affects his pension for the following month. But if he is placed on the fixed military pension scale, it will make no difference to his pension. The Minister is already known as the only man who has done anything for them. The Minister, by accepting this suggestion of mine, would grant even greater recognition to these people. These are the few points which I wanted to make. I want to be as brief as possible. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accept amendments in the Committee stage of the Bill to that effect.

I intend to be very brief at this stage of the Session. I will condense my remarks as much as I possibly can. I welcome this Bill, as indeed the House and the country generally will. The Minister said it falls into two parts; I am not going to deal with the second part, which has removed a number of anomalies and clarified a number of doubtful points. That there are still anomalies we know from the speakers we have just listened to. It is impossible to expect the Government to remove all the anomalies at once. The Government certainly have made an appreciable advance in this matter, and have done a great deal to meet the suggestions made by soldiers’ organisations. The administration also has been improved. It is with regard to the first point I want to say a few words. The Minister, in his budget speech, made a welcome announcement—not welcome to all, because we know from the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that it is distinctly unwelcome to him—an announcement arising from which he has now provided pensions for the most needy people in our community. How it can be logically said that you can deny the old age pension to one particular section, purely on the ground that he is a native or an Asiatic. I really fail entirely to understand. Every section of the people is entitled to be treated with common humanity, and it is part of the laws of any civilised state to contain provision for those who are too old to earn their livelihood any more, and who are not in a position to retire on any income they have had, or investments they have made. I for one, and I have no doubt the House generally welcomes the carrying out of the promise made by the Minister when he made his budget speech in extending the old age pension scheme to natives and Asiatics. Then the Minister has also made provision for the extension of the non-statutory invalidity grants to coloured persons, natives and Asiatics. It was an anomaly that these persons were not able to get any grant because there was no regulation dealing with that particular matter. That anomaly has been removed. There has also been an increase of the blind pension and invalidity grant rates in the case of Europeans. I would not have spoken on this matter at all had it not been for the fact that there is a burning feeling among non-Europeans, accentuated by what has happened now, that this discrimination that started with the Act of 1928 is becoming a fixed part of our legislative machinery. It is not as if each case was taken on its merits, but the idea seems to be that particular groups occupy such a position, and their means are so small, that they can do with a smaller pension; the basis in fact is purely a basis of colour. At a recent public meeting held in Cape Town a resolution was passed and a telegram was sent to me protesting against what they call further discrimination against coloured blind and old age pensions as outlined in the budget speech. I sent a copy of the telegram to the Minister, who was kind enough to have a résumé of the history of the subject made for me by the Commissioner of Pensions. This I passed on in the form of information to the persons who sent me the telegram, after which I received a letter from the League of Friends of the Blind, who were responsible for the meeting I refer to. I sent a copy of this letter to the Minister and the Commissioner of Pensions, and I hope the Minister in his reply will deal with the points that are made by this body, the Friends of the Blind. Dealing with the matter of old age pensions, the cardinal point to which they direct attention is the method of assessing the needs of a blind or aged man on the basis of his colour. That apparently is the basis upon which these matters are assessed. They point out a number of things which they think are unfair in regard to the Act of 1928 as amended, not only as regards the maximum that is payable, but particularly with regard to the means test and the résumé that has been given to me confirm me in the belief that they are right as far as their facts are concerned. They say that when advances are made—there have been advances. In the original Act, the maximum pension was £18 and the pension ranged with £18 as the maximum to £3. Now it is £21. There have been advances, but the case of these people is that when these advances have been made, the advances to the coloured people were not proportionate to the amount that was given to the European. They point out that in the administration of the provisions of the Act there is reason for complaint, because the maximum pensions are very seldom received by them. They also point out that you cannot apply the maximum pension in rural areas. That restriction also applies to Europeans, that I say in fairness, but they point out that when you analyse the position you find that whereas the European old-age pensioner in rural areas foregoes only two-sevenths of the maximum, the coloured old-age pensioner has to forego five-sevenths of the maximum in rural areas. The coloured blind is under exactly the same disadvantage, because, whereas the European foregoes one-sixth the coloured pensioner has to forego half the maximum pension. In fact, Sir, they put this anomalous position to the Minister, that the European old-age and blind pensioners in rural areas are better off under the Pensions Scheme than the blind or old-age coloured pensioner in urban areas. They have a suspicion, though I have no personal evidence of it, that in the administration there is a definite attempt made to lower the amount given to non-Europeans. They point out that as at the 29th February, 60 per cent. of the European blind pensioners were in receipt of the pension, between £31 and £36 per annum, whereas only 30 per cent. of the coloured blind were in receipt of pensions between £19 and £24 per annum, which shows that the percentage of those obtaining the maximum among Europeans is considerably higher than those amongst the coloureds who are receiving the maximum. If you take the old-age pension, the position is even worse. While 30 per cent. of the Europeans are in receipt of the maximum only 7 per cent. of the coloureds are receiving that maximum. If that is the case it does not look as if the merits of the individuals can be taken into consideration, because as they point out you either have to assume that the incidence of blindness in old age is very much higher in rural areas than in urban areas, which of course is absurd, or that the economic position of coloured blind and aged is better than the European, which is another absurdity. They have a suspicion therefore that they are being still further discriminated against in that they not only get a lower maximum, but a very much smaller number of them are allowed to reach that maximum. They put their finger on the weak spot in the administration, and I agree with them that the weak spot lies in the power given to the Commissioner—I have nothing to say against him personally, I have come into contact with the department and they have treated my requests with great courtesy and shown patience in investigating the cases that I have brought forward—but the weak spot is the power which is given to the Commissioner. I do think that power is too great to give to any one man. The Acts lay down certain maxima, and then they give the Commissioner the power alone to assess the pension which he considers reasonable and sufficient. Well, Sir, that seems to reduce our legislation to a farce. If, after legislating elaborately, you put a clause in the Act which gives absolute and autocratic power to one person to assess what is reasonable and sufficient, you are stultifying the Act. These people are afraid the Commissioner will consider that what is reasonable and sufficient for the coloured man is very much less than what is reasonable and sufficient for the white man, purely on the basis of colour. I hope that some better machinery can be devised than leaving it in the power of one official to declare what is reasonable and sufficient. This discrimination does not end here. Pensioners get cost of living allowance now, but the rise in the cost of living in the case of the Europeans is reckoned at twice as much as is in the case of the non-Europeans. Surely the rise in the cost cannot be only half as much in the case of the non-European as in the case of the European, and the assessment must therefore be purely on the ground of colour. No-one would object to each case being determined on its merits, but to make a permanent rule that so much should go to the coloured man and twice as much to the European is wrong. I think that these coloured discriminations are a burning question among non-Europeans throughout the country, and that is the reason why I mention this matter today, in the hope that the Minister will in his reply give us some hope that something better is in store for these people, and that they are not to regard themselves as a permanently inferior section of the population. I think there is something radically wrong here and something that the Minister with his liberal views might adjust, and I hope he will take early steps to that end. I welcome the Bill as a whole, it certainly carries out the pledges given by the Government to the people of South Africa and I regard it as another instalment of social justice, and I trust justice will be done to non-Europeans as well.

I just want to refer to a few aspects of this Bill. But before doing so, I want to point out that here we have an important Bill before us, a Bill which will involve the expenditure of a great sum of money, and we have no idea how much money will have to be spent as a result of this Bill, if we pass it. This is a matter which has been discussed in this House on a previous occasion, namely, that when introducing a Bill there should also be an estimate of the probable costs involved in giving effect to the provisions of the Bill which is submitted to the House. This is a matter which was brought to the notice of the House as far back as 1920, and I want to quote from an article which appeared under the title: “A Survey of the Financial Administration of the Union,” by Mr. Shannon. Inter alia, he wrote as follows in regard to this matter—

That is the Select Committee on Public Accounts—

He then goes on to say—

Here we are again dealing with a Bill of that nature which is going to impose a heavy burden on the taxpayers of this country, as far as we are able to judge at the moment. But we have no indication as to what that burden will amount to.

It will depend on the course of the war.

It does not only depend on that. The old age pensions do not depend on the war.

But the pensions of the soldiers do.

Yes, but that does not represent the whole Bill. If the hon. member will only give me a chance to make my point, he will see that there was no reason for him to make that interjection. I wanted to come to the next point, as a matter of fact. The Minister might have said that it is difficult to make an estimate of the costs of old age pensions. I can understand that. It will be difficult to make an accurate estimate, but I do not believe that it is impossible to make such an estimate. I do not want to say that it will be a very accurate estimate, but it can nevertheless be an estimate based on the data which the Minister and his department have at their disposal. Take the position in connection with old age pensions which will be payable to natives. I am not referring to the increase in the old age pension for European and coloureds, because in that case one can estimate on these lines, that the existing pension involves the expenditure of so much, that the increase is so much per cent. and that the additional amount will therefore be so much. But here we are dealing with a new item like old age pensions which will now be payable to natives for the first time. I notice in the report of the Select Committee on Social Security that they have made an estimate on this very point, because they adopt the attitude that any existing benefit should be retained, and they then take into consideration the benefits which were indicated by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech and which are now confirmed here in respect of old age pensions for natives. I notice in the addendum to the report that they expect an estimated cost in 1946-’47 of £1,600,000 in respect of old age pensions to natives on the basis which is laid down in this Bill. If the Committee on Social Security could make such an estimate, why is it impossible or difficult for the Minister with his Department to do so? Then I notice another item, namely, the schemes in respect of invalidity, blindness, etc. It is estimated that an amount of £310,000 for natives will be necessary for that purpose. I am only mentioning two of these items, in respect of which I should like the House to know what the amount is which we are voting. We should not blindly vote a certain amount and impose a burden on posterity and then at a later date, when the position becomes unbearable, say that we did not know that this innocent-looking Bill would mean such a heavy burden. As far as the native old age pension is concerned, it will apparently involve a burden of £1,600,000. I particularly want to discuss that aspect of the Bill, and I want to submit this to the House and to the country: Are we really taking a sensible step in granting old age pensions to natives without having instituted a proper investigation in regard to the possible effect of it? In the second place I want to ask what the effect of this will be on our native and national policy. We know—and I am glad that the Minister of Native Affairs is also in the House—that this country has adopted a policy of separateness. The old name of segregation is no longer popular. I agree that “separateness” is a better word. That is the policy which has been adopted. Have experts already investigated to what extent the award of old age pensions to natives will promote that policy of separateness and to what extent it may promote the policy of equality? We have just heard what the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) said. He is a Government front bencher. His objection to this Bill was that there was discrimination in regard to the amount which is paid to Europeans, to coloured persons and to natives. He wants it to be on an equal basis for everyone. He sees in this Bill a means which will lead to his ideal of equality. I want to say this that a well known writer, and a man who is regarded as very liberal in respect of native affairs, namely, Professor Hoernle, has pointed out how insidious this policy of equality is, how it begins in an innocent manner, but what it may mean to the country and to the people if carried through to its logical consequence. He says that this policy means, in the first place, and at the very least, cultural assimilation. That is the first step. But then he goes on to say—

That is a step which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) has already reached. Then he goes on to say—

See what the next step will be—social assimilation. And then he states that the fourth step will be this—

Then he goes on to say that the last step will be this—

And I would like hon. members on this side and on that side of the House to pay attention to this—

We are glad that there are these resistances to the policy of assimilation, and I am also glad to be able to say that in the present Minister of Native Affairs we have someone who, up to the present, has shown that he is not prepared to allow that blind tempo of racial assimilation—

I merely mention this, because I want to put this question to the House: I want to ask whether it has been considered to what extent this policy which we are now laying down of giving pensions to natives, will lead to assimilation; to what extent will it assist in the direction which the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) wants, namely, that there should be equality; to what extent will it act as a brake to prevent racial assimilation? Has that matter been fully considered, and is it not necessary for us, before passing this measure, first to institute a very intensive investigation in order to establish what effect this will have on our native policy and our national policy in South Africa? But there is a second objection which I want to submit to the House, and that is what the effect of this will be on the native himself. We have been told what their psychology is. As a race they have not developed to the same extent as the Europeans. They are not accustomed to assistance from the Government. Will it promote the native’s inclination to work? We know that that inclination is not very great even today. Will this measure not act as a deterrent to the little inclination on the part of the native to work? Then there is another important point. What effect will it have on the process of detribalisation of the natives? We know that latterly there has been a strong movement away from the reserves and from the tribal connections, towards the cities under the so-called civilisation; and we know that the first influences with which our natives come into contact here are not the best elements in civilisation but the worst. It is the glitter of that civilisation which attracts them. Western civilisation is a closed book to him. What will the effect of this be on the detribalisation of the native? The Minister of Native Affairs is saddled with that problem. He told us the other day that the number of natives in Cape Town alone had increased in the last ten years from 16,000 to 60,000. In the last ten years the number in Cape Town has increased from 16,000 to 60,000 and the same development is taking place in the other large cities. What will the effect of this be on the process of the urbanisation of the natives? I notice that provision has been made for the pension of the old native who lives in the city to be twice as much as that of the native on the platteland. I know that it is much better for an old native to live on the platteland and to receive a pension of £6 than to live in the city and to receive a pension of £12. But the question is whether the native has sufficient intelligence to realise that. How will he look at the matter?

He looks at the money.

He looks at this matter in the form of hard cash. He argues that he will get £12 in the city and only £6 in the platteland. He therefore prefers to go to the city; and there is this danger or difficulty that we will find that the cities will become the haven or refuge of aged natives. But there is another very important aspect which we must take into consideration, and that is what effect this will have on the bordering protectorates and territories. In the first place, have we thought of the financial implications of this policy in respect of the protectorates and Northern and Southern Rhodesia? Have we thought of the financial implications which this scheme will have in regard to the future incorporation of those states? The population of those protectorates and of Northern and Southern Rhodesia is 3,700,000. That is the native population. Our own native population is a little more than 7,000,000. That means that if these protectorates and Northern and Southern Rhodesia are incorporated into the Union, we will have an increase of approximately 50 per cent. in our native population. The natives who then enter the Union will have to have the same privileges as the natives in this country. The old-age pension would have to be extended to them, would it not? Have we thought what it will cost the country? On this low basis on which it amounts to £1,600,000, it will increase proportionately by 50 per cent., and it will then amount to £2,400,000. That is what we have to take into consideration, because we do not want to lose sight of the possibility of incorporating those states. Nor must we lose sight of the fact that we are now making the price so high that it will later on be used as an argument against the incorporation of those protectorates. But there is another very important point which we must take into consideration. Is an old-age pension paid to the natives in those protectorates and in Northern and Southern Rhodesia? The protectorates are under the Government of Great Britain. As far as I know—I say this subject to correction—no old-age pension is paid to natives in Basutoland, Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Northern and Southern Rhodesia. We now propose to pay an old-age pension to our natives. What effect will it have on the natives in the bordering and adjacent territories, protectorates and other states? Will it satisfy them? Will it cause an agitation there? That agitation will not affect us to any great extent, but what does effect us is that old-age pensions are paid in the Union, the Union will become the haven of refuge of every old native in Basutoland, Swaziland, Bechuanaland, and Northern and Southern Rhodesia. They will try to come to the Union to obtain benefits here which they do not get in their own country, and this country will become the Old-Age Home for natives of the bordering territories. These are things which one must take into consideration before accepting this policy which is proposed by the Minister. My plea is that this matter should first be thoroughly investigated. As far as the psychology of the native is concerned, I should have liked people who are experts in this sphere to tell us what the effect will be on the psychology of the native. Is it really going to assist him or is it going to handicap him? Will it make his life happier or will it make him long for more assistance; will it undermine the labour element which is the soul of the existence of every human being? Will it result in the native adopting the attitude that, he can sit back, that it is not necessary for him to work, that he is 65 years of age and that he can therefore be idle? I am afraid that this proposal will have a demoralising effect on the energies of the South African native to work, and that at a time when we are desirous’ of increasing the national income, which is dependent on the labour of every individual. I am afraid it may have a restricting influence on the anticipated increase. With regard to the position of the Indians, I want to point out that the Indian problem has not yet been solved. Hon. members who represent Natal know what the difficulties are in that province. Have we considered what the influence of this step will be? Will it not obstruct the solution of this problem; is it not going to aggravate the problem? Should not this question of old age pensions for Indians form part of the greater problem of solving the Indian problem in general? I just wanted to bring these few thoughts to the notice of the House. I want to ask the House to consider this Bill with the seriousness it deserves. It is a matter which we all have at heart. The future of European civilisation is a matter towards which we cannot remain indifferent. I take it that both sides realise the seriousness of this matter, and I want to make an appeal to hon. members of the House not to come to a hasty decision which may have disastrous effects for their children and their grand-children.

Mr. Speaker, I want to refer only briefly to the war pensions sections in this Bill. Before doing so, I wish to thank the Minister for making the Bill so comprehensive, and to thank him also for his instalment of social security in which he has put humanitarianism above colour in granting old age pensions to native people and to other non-Europeans. I think also that this House and the country owe considerable thanks to the Commissioner of Pensions, Major Pirie, for the work he is now doing, and what he has done in the past in building up this body of legislation. I feel that we must consider this question against the background of the terrific struggle that is now going on in Italy, where our men are locked in combat, giving the maximum for what they believe to be a just cause. It is therefore very pertinent that we ask what we are doing for them in return for the maximum they are doing for us. Mr. Speaker, if I have any criticism at all of this Bill, it is this: that though the horizontal reach of the provisions of the Bill is adequate, I am not satisfied that its vertical reach is satisfactory. I think, Sir, we want to get clear in our minds what should be the datum line on which to build up our pensions provisions. Is it to be a minimum needs line, a subsistence level, or is it to be a civilised standard? The “Cape Times” answered that question adequately in a leading article on the 29th of April in dealing with the demobilisation plans. I quote from the “Cape Times” of that date—

This Bill, Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly bases the benefits on the standard of minimum needs, and that is my criticism of it. I am confident, and I know the Minister realises, as all hon. members do, that our disabled men, our war widows, particularly those who are charged with the responsibility of bringing up families, are not able on the existing pension payments to live today even at their pre-war standard. The benefits are based on minimum needs. That is the reason. They are based on 1939 price levels, and the cost of living since then has gone up between 30 and 40 per cent. which it is today. Then surely a case can be made for an increase in all these benefits, to increase them vertically. As an alternative may I suggest that the Minister give very serious consideration to applying to all war pensioners the same cost of living allowances as now apply in the public service. The Minister may answer: “Well, this Bill is a comprehensive Bill; it is comparable to the pension provisions in Australia, New Zealand and the United States.” It is comparable, Sir, but we must not forget that in those countries today there are comprehensive social security provisions under the umbrella of which the disabled men and the demobilised men get protection on their return to civilian life, and under which their families get the necessary protection in regard to family income, and adequate provision in regard to health services. Or the Minister may say: “Where is the money coming from?” No, Sir, I am wrong. He does not say that. I do not think that at any time in the case of war pensions he has ever used that argument. The question as to where the money is coming from must be looked at in this light. Under the provisions of this Bill, in their application to the life and the conditions of the men and women concerned, no soldier is going to make any profit out of this war, which has provided a sort of happy hunting ground in this country where enormous profits are being made and where a heavy increase in capital appreciation is occurring. I am quite confident of this, that if the Minister came to this House and said that he was going to appropriate those profits or the greater part of them, and by a capital levy intended to get hold of appreciated values to create a fund for the pensions we are now considering, this House and the country would support and acclaim him. I should like, in conclusion, to ask the Minister to extend the provisions of this Bill horizontally. I hope that he will be adamant, that he will be rigid, in seeing that all members of the merchant navy, in whatever ships they may sail, and all South Africans in the Imperial Airways in the war zones will get the same provisions under this Bill as military personnel or those who are doing social work as their war service on the home front. Secondly, I hope he will apply this Bill to the veterans of all wars, so that our veterans and the Oudstryders may be relieved of the ignominy of having to depend on grants and charities, and will come in with their full rights as citizens, sharing with the heroes of this war. Again, Sir, I hope he will make provision whereby the onus of proof for death or disability is not placed on the widow or the parent or the disabled man, but placed on the State itself. That cannot be expressed better than in a document issued by the Moths Association to the effect that—

It has been said that this Bill is a part of social security. It is very much more than social security; social security offers a minimum; a grateful and a generous country, in the name of those who are protecting its honour and its integrity, should be prepared to give to these men and women not a minimum but a generous maximum.

I should like to say how much I welcome the Minister’s flexible attitude on this matter of pensions, because there is no single matter on which the House and the country feels that it is so essential that the Minister should be flexible than on this question of pensions. The circumstances of pensions vary, and to meet those varying needs flexibility, above all, is necessary. But I do hope that he will endeavour also to see to it that as much as is possible within the framework of the provisions of the Acts, that that attitude of flexibility will extend also to the administration of these Acts. It is essential that the attitude of the Pensions Department too shall be as flexible as is possibly compatible with the administration of the Acts. There is one point which I must mention in connection with the early provisions of the Bill. It does not deal with war pensions. The Minister has told us of an increase in the blind person’s pension. That I welcome, but I would ask him to investigate the possibilities of removing from the pensions of blind persons any means test. I should like him to take the generous view that blindness itself is a sufficient handicap, so that no means test at all should remain in the administration of these pensions. As regards the war pensions provisions I welcome this Bill because it is an advance and it does cover cases which are not covered by previous Acts. I particularly welcome the advance which is made in this Bill in Section 5 whereby the dependants of men who are invalided down from the North, and subsequently die in the Union will be enabled to get pensions. That is a great improvement, but it still does not bridge the gap to which attention has already been drawn and which I think constitutes a great grievance. I have raised it on numerous occasions. I refer to the fact that the depandants of men who are killed on leave in the Union get no pension at all. Let me remind the House again of a case which is within my own knowledge of a man who was on leave in Durban and was run down by a motorist. The motorist was convicted of culpable homicide but nevertheless the dependants of that man get no pension and will get no pension even under this Bill. I would ask the Minister that when he appoints this committee of enquiry, which I very heartily welcome, to see to it that the terms of reference to the committee are wide enough to cover such a case, and there are many, as I have mentioned. There are members of the forces who have died actually in uniform, but because they were not on military duty at the moment their dependants get no pension. That is a grave matter. A further matter I would like him to take into consideration, and get his committee to enquire into, is the case where a man gets no pension for his dependants, or for himself because his invalidity is not attributable to his service, but gets a grant from the Special Grants Board. I want such a man to be allowed access to military doctors in the same way as pensioners. It is true that when our 1942 Act was passed it compared well with the Pensions. Acts of the rest of the Commonwealth. But since then they have advanced ahead of us. For instance, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom give pensions to the widows and dependants of men killed, whether in their own country or on service abroad. They also give pensions to the dependants of men killed while on leave In England indeed they give pensions to widows and dependants of soldiers killed in any way save by domestic accidents. I stress this to bring me back to my main point that we still have done nothing to ease the case of the widows and dependants of men killed on leave. That, it seems to me, is the worst gap in our pension structure and I hope that the Minister, knowing how the House feels about this matter, will urge his committee of enquiry to make recommendations on this point also.

I want to compliment the Minister on the very wide ambit of the amendment in this particular Bill, and I particularly appreciate the fact that natives and Indians are to receive, as a statutory right, a pension by virtue of the disabilities that they suffer. I don’t propose to follow the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) but I want to remind him, when he tells us that we must cut our coat according to our cloth, that he should remember who is to do the cutting, whose is the material cut and who is to wear the coat after it is cut. Let me remind this House, if indeed it requires any reminding, that there would be no benefits to go round at all were it not for the fact that the economic security of South Africa is based upon the non-European and native population; they are the source from which we draw our benefits. I welcome this basis upon which we are going to build the social security of this Union. We must effect an equitable adjustment of the benefits which South Africa can afford to those who have made it possible for South Africa to afford any benefits at all. The hon. member for Fauresmith is quite wrong when he suggests that the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) with whom I agree, suggests that he wants absolute comparable and equal benefits for the native, coloured and European, by wiping out the differentiation that is actually in this Bill to the detriment of the coloured beneficiaries under the Blind and Old Age Pensions Act. I would remind the hon. Minister of the basis upon which benefits were given as between the Europeans and the coloured. The basis was the economic standard which the Government was prepared to maintain, so that the European would get a whole and the coloured would get two-thirds. That was the fundamental basis of the first discrimination, that the coloured man was entitled to economic benefits out of the State Treasury to the extent of two thirds of what was given to the European. That was altered very shortly afterwards in the Old Age Pensions Act which laid it down that the European pensioner would get £2 10s. per month, or £30 per annum, and the non-European was entitled to £18. The differentiation then came down from two-thirds to three-fifths. May I also remind the Minister that as the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) has pointed out, that while the Old Age Pension Act laid down the benefits which the country was prepared to accord to pensioners, both European and coloured, it then empowered the Commissioner of Pensions to determine the measure of what each individual would receive. In a time of depression, and for no other reason, the then Minister of Finance, and not the Commissioner of Pensions, laid down the determination that no coloured old age pensioner, in rural areas, should receive anything more than 10s. per month, and that was despite the provision of the Old Age Pensions Act. By a stroke of the pen and on a particular date, without any warning to the old age coloured pensioner in rural districts, who turned up with his pension book entitled to receive a certain sum under the Act, found that he could not get more than 10s. per month. That was the first arbitrary differentiation. When the Blind Pensions Act came into force the same session this discrimination between the coloured blind and European blind came into effect. It was axiomatic in this House in accepting the Bill that it cost a lot more to be blind than it did to be old. That was the fundamental principle upon which it was accepted. It was not accepted in Mr. Fourie’s Act, that the basis should be 10s. more for a coloured blind person than that which he would have received as an old age pensioner, nor was it axiomatic in that Bill that a European blind person was to get 10s. per month more than he would have got had he been old. It was laid down as a fact to be determined by the economic standing and by the measure of the need of both European and coloured, that a blind European would get no more than £36 per annum and a coloured would get no more than £24 per annum, but the administration of that Blind Pensions Act has never been applied at all in the light of the spirit in which it was accepted by this House. It was laid down by a ruling of the Commissioner of Pensions that no blind coloured person would receive more than ten shillings in addition to what he would have received had he been an old age pensioner. The old age pension was determined, not by the Act or the discretion of the Commissioner of Pensions, but by an arbitrary action of the Minister of Finance, determined behind the back of the Commissioner of Pensions, that no old age coloured pensioner was to get more than ten shillings a month. I am very pleased to see that there is to be an advance in the old age pension for European and coloured people, and I ask, with all the emphasis that I can employ, that we should go back to determining the economic needs of the person irrespective of the administrative action which I have referred to. I don’t know whether the £6 which is to be added to the European pension is to be added to his basic pension, raising it from £36 to £42. I would like to remind the Minister again that it costs a lot more to be blind than it does to be old. The blind man, by virtue of his economic disability, incurs very many more financial obligations than are borne upon the shoulders of the old age pensioner. I am sure the country will welcome this complete elimination of the measure of children’s obligation to contribute to a pension which the State is conferring. That was a blot on the Pensions Act. When the Bill originally went through this House, it went through without that but it was put in in the Other Place. It should never have been put in our legislation, and I am pleased to see that it is removed. With regard to War Disability Pensions I am glad to see the improvements which the Minister is introducing. The Minister in his admirable introduction of the Bill laid stress on what was due to a widow whose husband contracted a physical disability in the service of this country outside the Union. I am glad to see the improvements which the Minister is proposing. There are certain anomalies which I hope will be improved by the Committee which the Minister is going to set up. I welcome the Bill. I want to remind the Minister once more that it costs a lot more to be blind than to be old, and I ask him to restore that original benefit which was given to the blind—this additional £6 per annum—to meet the added economical disadvantages of that particular handicap.

This Bill is of very great importance. It is late already and with the leave of the Minister I want to move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 26th May.